October 28 2015 7:46 PM, "Lars-Peter Clausen" <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/28/2015 07:35 PM, Nicola Corna wrote:
>
>> October 28 2015 10:38 AM, "Lars-Peter Clausen" <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/28/2015 07:58 AM, Nicola Corna wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> + holdmode = !((*client)->adapter->quirks &&
>>>> + (*client)->adapter->quirks->flags &
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> + client->adapter->quirks &&
>>>> + client->adapter->quirks->flags & I2C_AQ_NO_CLK_STRETCH)
>>>
>>> This is rather ugly, can we get a helper in the I2C core something along the
>>> lines of
>>>
>>> i2c_check_quirks(client->adapter, I2C_AQ_NO_CLK_STRETCH)
>>>
>>> - Lars
>>
>> Something like this?
>>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/include/linux/i2c.h b/include/linux/i2c.h
>> index a69a9a0..a06ffc0 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/i2c.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/i2c.h
>> @@ -613,6 +613,12 @@ static inline int i2c_check_functionality(struct i2c_adapter *adap, u32 func)
>> return (func & i2c_get_functionality(adap)) == func;
>> }
>>
>> +/* Return 1 if adapter has the specified quirks, 0 if not. */
>> +static inline int i2c_check_quirks(struct i2c_adapter *adap, u64 quirks)
>> +{
>> + return (quirks & (adap->quirks ? adap->quirks->flags : 0)) == quirks;
>> +}
>
> This is not a code obfuscation contest ;)
I love one-liners ;)
> So maybe more like this:
>
> static inline bool i2c_check_quirks(struct i2c_adapter *adap, u64 quirks)
> {
> if (!adap->quirks)
> return false;
> return (adap->quirks->flags & quirks) == quirks;
> }
Should I use bool (like in your snippet) or int (like i2c_check_functionality) as return type?
> And please use kernel-doc for the documentation.
--
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
