Hi Sricharan,
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 11:14 +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
>
> > > + if (msg->flags & I2C_M_RD)
> > > + qup->rx_tag_len = (qup->blocks << 1);
> >
> > here again.
> >
> hmm, why not shift ?
Because it makes reading code harder and because compiler
is smart enough to choose appropriate instruction for
underling CPU architecture.
> > > + else
> > > + qup->rx_tag_len = 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static u32 qup_i2c_xfer_data(struct qup_i2c_dev *qup, int len,
> > > + u8 *buf, int last)
> > > +{
> >
> > I think that xfer is too vague in this case, prefer write or send.
> >
> ok. Will change it to send.
> > > + static u32 val, idx;
> >
> > static? please fix.
> That was intentional. Using to pack tag and data in to one word across
> two calls. So preserving val, idx across calls.
Sorry this is no go! Reorganize the code, please.
Regards,
Ivan
--
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
