On 2018-06-18 13:54, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >>> 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? > > I have a strong opinion on making i2c.h less bloated. And yes, less > number of lines is nice, too. I think that surely pays off the > whitespace exception. Ok, I have rebased onto v4.18-rc1, killed the i2c-tegra hunk and converted i2c_lock_root(foo) over to i2c_lock_bus(foo, I2C_LOCK_ROOT_ADAPTER) and i2c_lock_segment(foo) over to i2c_lock_bus(foo, I2C_LOCK_SEGMENT). And I of course killed a bunch of locking helpers in i2c.h. I doing build tests now, will post a v2 in the morning. 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
 |