On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:57:29PM +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> Hi Johan, >> >> Again, thanks for the detailed review, I am addressing your review >> comments as we speak. Some questions below. >> >> <snip> >> >> > > + int ret, len; >> > > + struct tx_data { >> > > + u8 port; >> > > + u8 addr; >> > > + u8 mem_addr_len; >> > > + __le32 mem_addr; >> > > + __le16 buf_len; >> > > + u8 buf[DLN2_I2C_MAX_XFER_SIZE]; >> > > + } __packed tx; >> > >> > Allocate these buffers dynamically (possibly at probe). >> > >> >> I double checked this, and DLN2_I2C_MAX_XFER_SIZE should actually be < >> 64 as the USB endpoint configuration max packet size is 64. In this >> case, can we keep it on the stack? > > It's better to lift that restriction and allocate it dynamically. Using > larger buffers (> EP size) is also more efficient. > >> <snip> >> >> > > + int ret, buf_len, rx_len = sizeof(rx); >> > >> > Again, one declaration per line. >> >> AFAICS there are many places where declaration on the same line >> (initialization included) are used. When did this became a coding >> style issue? > > It's ugly, hurts readability, and can also obfuscate the fact that your > function really needs to be refactored. > > And it's in the CodingStyle: > > "To this end, use just one data declaration per line (no commas > for multiple data declarations)." > OK, I always thought that was for when declaring structures/unions. Just one more question on this subject: is the following allowed: int ret, len; or should it be: int ret; int len; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html