[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180810122511.2xnelcn6tguirfbp@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 14:25:11 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Esben Haabendal <esben.haabendal@...il.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Yuan Yao <yao.yuan@...escale.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Phil Reid <preid@...ctromag.com.au>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@...ruber.com>,
Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] i2c: imx: Simplify stopped state tracking
Hello Esben,
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:25:34AM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> writes:
> > Currently you have:
> >
> > if (for_busy && (temp & I2SR_IBB)) {
> > i2c_imx->stopped = 0;
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > if (!for_busy && !(temp & I2SR_IBB)) {
> > i2c_imx->stopped = 1;
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > The semantic of this is the same (apart from always updating .stopped)
> > but is imho easier:
> >
> > i2c_imx->stopped = !(temp & I2SR_IBB);
> >
> > if (for_busy != i2c_imx->stopped)
> > break;
>
> Yes, that should work also.
> Shorter, but IMHO a bit more convoluted to read.
> Let me know if I should send a new version with this change.
unless someone else chimes in I'd say keep it as is. I'd prefer my
variant, but I accept that this is something subjective.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists