On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/05/2014 03:57 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean. It *was* a local variable, that was the problem. > There are two option: one is to add it to the main struct, then other is to > allocate and free it inside the function. In general I dislike that since it > adds aan extra check (did we really get the memory?) and you have to make sure > you will free the memory. And that's besides the overhead of having to allocate > memory. Originally I named tmp_i2c_client 'probe_i2c_client', but then I saw > that the ir code needs it as well. If the ir code is fixed so it has its own > i2c client, then the name can revert to probe_i2c_client. > Right. Adding it to the main structure is better than alloc and free the memory. Would i2c_client_buf or i2c_client_data sound better than tmp_i2c_client? -- Shuah -- 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
