Hi Baruch On 10/24/2011 4:03 PM, Baruch Siach wrote:
Hi Rajeev, On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 03:28:02PM +0530, Rajeev Kumar wrote:Since I2C designware registers are 16 bit wide and so we should use readw/writew. Signed-off-by: Rajeev Kumar<rajeev-dlh.kumar@xxxxxx> --- drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware.c | 104 +++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware.c index 6eaa681..5149a10 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware.c +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware.c @@ -216,11 +216,11 @@ struct dw_i2c_dev { u32 abort_source; int irq; struct i2c_adapter adapter; - unsigned int tx_fifo_depth; - unsigned int rx_fifo_depth; + u16 tx_fifo_depth; + u16 rx_fifo_depth; };This looks wrong. The {tx,rx}_fifo_depth fields do not represent bit fields, but numbers. So unsigned int should be better here.
Yes, I agree with you, but I do not see any possibility of value of {tx,rx}_fifo_depth fields greater than 2^^16 - 1. So, would not it be better to keep them as u16 and save just 4 bytes.
~Rajeev
baruch
-- 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
