On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:17:31AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:09:01PM +0530, Jayachandran C wrote:
> > From: Ganesan Ramalingam <ganesanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Deprecate 'regstep' property and use the standard 'reg-shift' property
> > for register offset shifts. 'regstep' will still be supported as an
> > optional property, but will give a warning when used.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ganesan Ramalingam <ganesanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Jayachandran C <jayachandranc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
[...]
> > + }
> > + } else
> > + i2c->reg_shift = val;
>
> Now you are assigning an u32 to an int. Regstep will never be really a
> huge number, but still...
>
> Also, braces around else-block according to coding style.
>
> >
> > - val = of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node, "clock-frequency", NULL);
> > - if (!val) {
> > + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "clock-frequency", &val)) {
> > dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> > "Missing required parameter 'clock-frequency'\n");
> > return -ENODEV;
> > }
> > - i2c->clock_khz = be32_to_cpup(val) / 1000;
> > + i2c->clock_khz = val / 1000;
>
> Okay, "/ 1000" will guarantee that the divided value will fit into an
> int. Yet, what do we gain by not using u32?
I will send out a new version of this patch using u32. In this case I
felt that there is no need to use a fixed width type when an int would
do.
Regards,
JC.
--
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
