On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 05:37:15PM +0000, Martyn Welch wrote:
> On 02/01/16 03:11, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
> > cp210x_get_config and cp210x_set_config are cumbersome to use. This change
> > introduces new register access functions to replace them. New functions
> > are not yet called - the switch is done gradually in following changes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Shkolnyy <konstantin.shkolnyy-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > +/*
> > + * Reads any 8-bit CP210X_ register identified by req.
> > + */
> > +static int cp210x_read_u8_reg(struct usb_serial_port *port, u8 req, u8 *val)
> > +{
> > + return cp210x_read_reg_block(port, req, val, sizeof(*val));
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Writes any 16-bit CP210X_ register (req) whose value is passed
> > + * entirely in the wValue field of the USB request.
> > + */
> > +static int cp210x_write_u16_reg(struct usb_serial_port *port, u8 req, u16 val)
>
> Think this needs a different name to draw more attention to the fact
> that it writes in a different way from cp210x_write_u32_reg and how the
> cp210x_read_uXX_reg read.
Not necessarily. Why would the caller need to care about that?
Keeping the suggested names should be fine.
Thanks,
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
