[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YHAuIdwKMjZuDmXU@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 13:36:17 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, digetx@...il.com, treding@...dia.com,
jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com, rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk,
song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com, john.garry@...wei.com,
mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, prime.zeng@...wei.com,
linuxarm@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/5] i2c: core: add api to provide frequency mode
strings
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:55:51PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > +const char *i2c_freq_mode_string(u32 bus_freq_hz)
> > +{
> > + switch (bus_freq_hz) {
> > + case I2C_MAX_STANDARD_MODE_FREQ:
> > + return "Standard Mode (100 kHz)";
>
> Sorry, I just noticed just now. Shouldn't we also support lower
> frequencies than the maximum one? I.e.
>
> if (bus_freq_hz <= I2C_MAX_STANDARD_MODE_FREQ)
> return "Standard Mode (max 100 kHz)";
> else if (bus_freq_hz <= ... )
>
> ?
Can we add this later if needed?
Because in such case additionally printing bus_freq_hz will be fine, no?
But putting max to each frequency representation in the list of strings sounds
good to me.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists