linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 16/31] i2c: tegra: Remove "dma" variable from tegra_i2c_xfer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7587704b-7bc1-d6a9-19b4-befcbcbce26c@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 6 Sep 2020 01:36:20 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 16/31] i2c: tegra: Remove "dma" variable from
 tegra_i2c_xfer_msg()

06.09.2020 01:23, Michał Mirosław пишет:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 11:41:36PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> The "dma" variable of tegra_i2c_xfer_msg() function doesn't bring much in
>> regards to readability and generation of the code, hence let's remove it
>> to clean up code a tad.
> [...]
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
> [...]
>> +	if (i2c_dev->is_curr_dma_xfer) {
> [...]
> 
> In this case I like the previous code better: just because there are
> less letters to read. :-)

Besides readability, I also don't like much that the is_curr_dma_xfer is
initialized in tegra_i2c_xfer_msg() and then could be overridden by
tegra_i2c_config_fifo_trig(). In a result the "dma" variable confuses me
since it's not instantly obvious why it's set after
tegra_i2c_config_fifo_trig().

Looking at the final result, I think it's better to have the variable
removed. It makes code more consistent, IMO.