[...]
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/temperature/maxim_thermocouple.c b/drivers/iio/temperature/maxim_thermocouple.c
>> index 39dd202..01cad6e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/temperature/maxim_thermocouple.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/temperature/maxim_thermocouple.c
>> @@ -123,22 +123,24 @@ static int maxim_thermocouple_read(struct maxim_thermocouple_data *data,
>> {
>> unsigned int storage_bytes = data->chip->read_size;
>> unsigned int shift = chan->scan_type.shift + (chan->address * 8);
>> - unsigned int buf;
>> + __be16 buf1;
>> + __be32 buf2;
>> int ret;
>>
>> - ret = spi_read(data->spi, (void *) &buf, storage_bytes);
>> - if (ret)
>> - return ret;
>> -
>> switch (storage_bytes) {
>> case 2:
>> - *val = be16_to_cpu(buf);
>> + ret = spi_read(data->spi, (void *)&buf1, storage_bytes);
>> + *val = be16_to_cpu(buf1);
>
> Meh don't really like having buf1, and buf2 esp since they only used
> in one branch of the switch statement. And waste 2-4 byte of stack :).
>
> I recommend something like:
>
> case 2: {
> __be16 buf;
> ret = spi_read(data->spi, (void *)&buf1, storage_bytes);
> *val = be16_to_cpu(buf1);
> break;
> }
> case 4:
> ....
>
I'd be quite surprised if the compiled end result actually looks different
between this and the original patch. Compilers are quite smart these days. I
wouldn't worry too much about it and keep the original solution, since it
has a nicer code flow to it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
