On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:59:18 +0100, Michael Lawnick wrote: > Jean Delvare said the following: > > Hi Michael, Ben, > > > > On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:59:35 +0100, Michael Lawnick wrote: > >> Ben Dooks said the following: > >> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:06:31AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > >> >> Use a function pointer to decide whether to call i2c_add_adapter or > >> >> i2c_add_numbered_adapter. This makes the code more compact than the > >> >> current strategy of having the common code in a separate function. > >> > > >> > ok, how about changing i2c_add_numbered_adapter to take a -1 to mean > >> > assign bus number automatically? or something similar? > >> > >> IMHO better: i2c_add_adapter with optional (-1) bus parameter? > > > > Which problem are you both trying to solve, please? > > Function pointers tend to hide information. Seeing the targeted function > in source code makes it more clear, IMHO. This doesn't sound like a valid argument when the provider of the function pointer is only 20 lines away from the call site in the very same file, sorry. Adding a parameter to i2c_add_adapter would mean changing 105 calling sites. You have to understand that we aren't going to do that without a very good reason. Ben's proposal is equally invasive, as every current call to i2c_add_adapter would have to set the id to -1 before. This means changing 74 drivers for a marginal benefit. If someday calls to i2c_add_numbered_adapter() outnumber calls to i2c_add_adapter() by a factor 3, we can reconsider. But this isn't the case today. I am not particularly happy with the current situation myself, but it seemed like the best option when i2c_add_numbered_adapter() was introduced, and I see no reason to reconsider at this point in time. -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
