[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180618115444.pgjmfntp767zuvmw@ninjato>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 20:54:46 +0900
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>,
Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Crt Mori <cmo@...exis.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] i2c: add helpers for locking the I2C segment
> > I wonder if i2c_lock_segment() and i2c_lock_root_adapter() are really
> > more readable and convenient than i2c_lock_bus() with the flag. I think
> > the flags have speaking names, too.
> >
> > Is that an idea to remove these functions altogether and start using
> > i2c_lock_bus()?
>
> That would be fine with me. I don't have a strong opinion and agree that
> both are readable enough...
>
> It would make for a reduction of the number of lines so that's nice, but
> the macro in drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-gpio.c (patch 11) would not fit in
> the current \-width (or whatever you'd call that line of backslashes to
> the right in a multi-line macro).
>
> Does anyone have a strong opinion?
I have a strong opinion on making i2c.h less bloated. And yes, less
number of lines is nice, too. I think that surely pays off the
whitespace exception.
Thanks!
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists