On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:13:28AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> > > Here, the initialization to 0 is missing, so some values are broken.
> >
> > Yes, and this is fine. They are not being used. So, the idea is, whenever we
> > pass "false" as a parameter to the function we must take care of all fields we
> > are using.
>
> Can be argued. Still, uninitialized values look a little sloppy IMO. I
> had a patch on top of this series to print the generated values as debug
> output, and '0' looks much more intentional there.
>
> > > Why don't we just drop the pointer and init the array directly?
> > >
> > > struct i2c_timings t = {
> > > .bus_freq_hz = ...
> > > ...
> > > }
> >
> > I can do it if you think it's better. I have no strong opinion here.
> > From code prospective I guess it will be something similar anyway.
>
> I like it better. Easier to read in the code, no need for a seperate
> pointer. I can fix it locally here, though.
I already sent v4 the other day, but can update since I have got new tags to
pick up.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
