On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Julia,
>
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 17:38:33 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > Introduce use of I2c_MSG_READ/WRITE/OP, for readability.
>
> Next time you send this patch set, please Cc me on every post so that I
> don't have to hunt for them on lkml.org.
OK.
> > In each case, a length expressed as an explicit constant is also
> > re-expressed as the size of the buffer, when this is possible.
>
> This is conceptually wrong, please don't do that. It is perfectly valid
> to use a buffer which is larger than the message being written or read.
> When exchanging multiple messages, it is actually quite common to
> declare only 2 buffers and reuse them:
>
> char reg;
> char val[2];
>
> struct i2c_msg msg[2] = {
> { .addr = addr, .flags = 0, .buf = ®, .len = 1 },
> { .addr = addr, .flags = I2C_M_RD, .buf = val, .len = 1 },
> };
>
> reg = 0x04;
> i2c_transfer(i2c_adap, msg, 2);
> /* Do stuff with val */
>
> reg = 0x06;
> msg[1].len = 2;
> i2c_transfer(i2c_adap, msg, 2);
> /* Do stuff with val */
>
> Your conversion would read 2 bytes from register 0x04 instead of 1 in
> the example above.
>
> I am not opposed to the idea of i2c_msg initialization helper macros,
> but please don't mix that with actual code changes which could have bad
> side effects.
I at least tried to check in every case that the result of sizeof is the
same as the value that is present. But I can leave the constants as is,
if that seems better.
Thanks for the feedback.
julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
