> > I'd suggest to rename 'adapters' into 'num_adapters' throughout this > > patch. I think it makes the code a lot easier to understand. > > Hmm, you mean just the variable names, right? And not function names > such as i2c_mux_reserve_(num_)adapters? Yes, only variable names. > > Despite that I wonder why not using some of the realloc functions, I > > When I wrote it, I found no devm_ version of realloc. I'm not finding > anything now either... Right, there is no devm_ version of it :( > > wonder even more if we couldn't supply num_adapters to i2c_mux_alloc() > > and reserve the memory statically. i2c busses are not > > dynamic/hot-pluggable so that should be good enough? > > Yes, that would work, but it would take some restructuring in some of > the drivers that currently don't know how many child adapters they > are going to need when they call i2c_mux_alloc. Which ones? > Because you thought about removing i2c_mux_reserve_adapters completely, > and not provide any means of adding more adapters than specified in > the i2c_mux_alloc call, right? Yes. I assumed I2C to be static enough that such information is known in advance. > > Ignoring the 80 char limit here makes the code more readable. > > That is only true if you actually have more than 80 characters, so I don't > agree. Are you adamant about it? (I'm not) No. Keep it if you prefer it. > >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(i2c_mux_one_adapter); > > > > Are you sure the above function pays off? Its argument list is very > > complex and it doesn't save a lot of code. Having seperate calls is > > probably more understandable in drivers? Then again, I assume it makes > > the conversion of existing drivers easier. > > I added it in v4, you can check earlier versions if you like. Without > it most gate-muxes (i.e. typically the muxes in drivers/media) grew > since the i2c_add_mux_adapter call got replaced by two calls, i.e. > i2c_mux_alloc followed by i2c_max_add_adapter, and coupled with > error checks made it look more complex than before. So, this wasn't > much of a cleanup from the point of those drivers. Hmm, v3 didn't have the driver patches posted with it. Can you push it to your branch? I am also not too strong with this one, but having a look how it looks without would be nice.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
