Hi Ivan,
On 03/26/2015 01:01 PM, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
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.
ok.
+ 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.
Ok, will change this function.
Regards,
Sricharan
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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
