On 2018-06-18 13:05, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> +static inline void
>> +i2c_lock_segment(struct i2c_adapter *adapter)
>> +{
>> + i2c_lock_bus(adapter, I2C_LOCK_SEGMENT);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int
>> +i2c_trylock_segment(struct i2c_adapter *adapter)
>> +{
>> + return i2c_trylock_bus(adapter, I2C_LOCK_SEGMENT);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void
>> +i2c_unlock_segment(struct i2c_adapter *adapter)
>> +{
>> + i2c_unlock_bus(adapter, I2C_LOCK_SEGMENT);
>> +}
>
> I wonder if i2c_lock_segment() and i2c_lock_root_adapter() are really
> more readable and convenient than i2c_lock_bus() with the flag. I think
> the flags have speaking names, too.
>
> Is that an idea to remove these functions altogether and start using
> i2c_lock_bus()?
That would be fine with me. I don't have a strong opinion and agree that
both are readable enough...
It would make for a reduction of the number of lines so that's nice, but
the macro in drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-gpio.c (patch 11) would not fit in
the current \-width (or whatever you'd call that line of backslashes to
the right in a multi-line macro).
Does anyone have a strong opinion?
Cheers,
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
