On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:57:29PM +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Hi Johan,
>
> Again, thanks for the detailed review, I am addressing your review
> comments as we speak. Some questions below.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > + int ret, len;
> > > + struct tx_data {
> > > + u8 port;
> > > + u8 addr;
> > > + u8 mem_addr_len;
> > > + __le32 mem_addr;
> > > + __le16 buf_len;
> > > + u8 buf[DLN2_I2C_MAX_XFER_SIZE];
> > > + } __packed tx;
> >
> > Allocate these buffers dynamically (possibly at probe).
> >
>
> I double checked this, and DLN2_I2C_MAX_XFER_SIZE should actually be <
> 64 as the USB endpoint configuration max packet size is 64. In this
> case, can we keep it on the stack?
It's better to lift that restriction and allocate it dynamically. Using
larger buffers (> EP size) is also more efficient.
> <snip>
>
> > > + int ret, buf_len, rx_len = sizeof(rx);
> >
> > Again, one declaration per line.
>
> AFAICS there are many places where declaration on the same line
> (initialization included) are used. When did this became a coding
> style issue?
It's ugly, hurts readability, and can also obfuscate the fact that your
function really needs to be refactored.
And it's in the CodingStyle:
"To this end, use just one data declaration per line (no commas
for multiple data declarations)."
Johan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
