Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
can: bcm: use CAN frame instead of can_frame in comments
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history 
can_frame is the name of the struct can_frame which is not meant in
the corrected comments.

Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Marc Kleine-Budde <[email protected]>
  • Loading branch information
@hartkopp @marckleinebudde
hartkopp authored and marckleinebudde committed Jun 17, 2016
1 parent 95acb49 commit 72c8a89
Showing 1 changed file with 16 additions and 16 deletions.
32 changes: 16 additions & 16 deletions net/can/bcm.c
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
MODULE_AUTHOR("Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]>");
MODULE_ALIAS("can-proto-2");

/* easy access to can_frame payload */
/* easy access to CAN frame payload */
static inline u64 GET_U64(const struct can_frame *cp)
{
return *(u64 *)cp->data;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -305,13 +305,13 @@ static void bcm_send_to_user(struct bcm_op *op, struct bcm_msg_head *head,
memcpy(skb_put(skb, sizeof(*head)), head, sizeof(*head));

if (head->nframes) {
/* can_frames starting here */
/* CAN frames starting here */
firstframe = (struct can_frame *)skb_tail_pointer(skb);

memcpy(skb_put(skb, datalen), frames, datalen);

/*
* the BCM uses the can_dlc-element of the can_frame
* the BCM uses the can_dlc-element of the CAN frame
* structure for internal purposes. This is only
* relevant for updates that are generated by the
* BCM, where nframes is 1
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ static void bcm_rx_cmp_to_index(struct bcm_op *op, unsigned int index,
return;
}

/* do a real check in can_frame data section */
/* do a real check in CAN frame data section */

if ((GET_U64(&op->frames[index]) & GET_U64(rxdata)) !=
(GET_U64(&op->frames[index]) & GET_U64(&op->last_frames[index]))) {
Expand All @@ -501,7 +501,7 @@ static void bcm_rx_cmp_to_index(struct bcm_op *op, unsigned int index,
}

if (op->flags & RX_CHECK_DLC) {
/* do a real check in can_frame dlc */
/* do a real check in CAN frame dlc */
if (rxdata->can_dlc != (op->last_frames[index].can_dlc &
BCM_CAN_DLC_MASK)) {
bcm_rx_update_and_send(op, &op->last_frames[index],
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -554,7 +554,7 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart bcm_rx_timeout_handler(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)

/* if user wants to be informed, when cyclic CAN-Messages come back */
if ((op->flags & RX_ANNOUNCE_RESUME) && op->last_frames) {
/* clear received can_frames to indicate 'nothing received' */
/* clear received CAN frames to indicate 'nothing received' */
memset(op->last_frames, 0, op->nframes * CFSIZ);
}

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -840,7 +840,7 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
if (!ifindex)
return -ENODEV;

/* check nframes boundaries - we need at least one can_frame */
/* check nframes boundaries - we need at least one CAN frame */
if (msg_head->nframes < 1 || msg_head->nframes > MAX_NFRAMES)
return -EINVAL;

Expand All @@ -851,14 +851,14 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
/* update existing BCM operation */

/*
* Do we need more space for the can_frames than currently
* Do we need more space for the CAN frames than currently
* allocated? -> This is a _really_ unusual use-case and
* therefore (complexity / locking) it is not supported.
*/
if (msg_head->nframes > op->nframes)
return -E2BIG;

/* update can_frames content */
/* update CAN frames content */
for (i = 0; i < msg_head->nframes; i++) {
err = memcpy_from_msg((u8 *)&op->frames[i], msg, CFSIZ);

Expand All @@ -883,7 +883,7 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,

op->can_id = msg_head->can_id;

/* create array for can_frames and copy the data */
/* create array for CAN frames and copy the data */
if (msg_head->nframes > 1) {
op->frames = kmalloc(msg_head->nframes * CFSIZ,
GFP_KERNEL);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -966,7 +966,7 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,

if (op->flags & STARTTIMER) {
hrtimer_cancel(&op->timer);
/* spec: send can_frame when starting timer */
/* spec: send CAN frame when starting timer */
op->flags |= TX_ANNOUNCE;
}

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1015,15 +1015,15 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
/* update existing BCM operation */

/*
* Do we need more space for the can_frames than currently
* Do we need more space for the CAN frames than currently
* allocated? -> This is a _really_ unusual use-case and
* therefore (complexity / locking) it is not supported.
*/
if (msg_head->nframes > op->nframes)
return -E2BIG;

if (msg_head->nframes) {
/* update can_frames content */
/* update CAN frames content */
err = memcpy_from_msg((u8 *)op->frames, msg,
msg_head->nframes * CFSIZ);
if (err < 0)
Expand All @@ -1048,15 +1048,15 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg,
op->nframes = msg_head->nframes;

if (msg_head->nframes > 1) {
/* create array for can_frames and copy the data */
/* create array for CAN frames and copy the data */
op->frames = kmalloc(msg_head->nframes * CFSIZ,
GFP_KERNEL);
if (!op->frames) {
kfree(op);
return -ENOMEM;
}

/* create and init array for received can_frames */
/* create and init array for received CAN frames */
op->last_frames = kzalloc(msg_head->nframes * CFSIZ,
GFP_KERNEL);
if (!op->last_frames) {
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1327,7 +1327,7 @@ static int bcm_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size)
break;

case TX_SEND:
/* we need exactly one can_frame behind the msg head */
/* we need exactly one CAN frame behind the msg head */
if ((msg_head.nframes != 1) || (size != CFSIZ + MHSIZ))
ret = -EINVAL;
else
Expand Down

0 comments on commit 72c8a89

Please sign in to comment.