Hi Maciej, On Fri, 9 May 2008 21:55:38 +0100 (BST), Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > This is reimplementing i2c_smbus_write_i2c_block_data(). > > Where does it come from? I fail to see this type of transfer being > defined anywhere in the SMBus spec. It is indeed not. > I checked the spec before I referred > to the implementation in our I2C core and I hope you agree I may not have > expected any extensions beyond what the SMBus spec defines. The "smbus" in these function names are more about "what SMBus controllers usually can do" than about the SMBus specification. But I admit you couldn't guess. > That written, you are of course correct WRT the reimplementation and I am > eager to remove it -- thanks for the point. I'll skip all your other > comments related as obviously implied by this change. > > Given the function and friends make use of apparently a non-standard > SMBus transfer, I think they should be called differently, perhaps > i2c_smbusext_write_i2c_block_data(), etc. or suchlike. This was an option when the functions where introduced 9 years ago. But now that it was done, renaming them would cause even more confusion, I think. I would be fine with adding comments in i2c-core.c or improving Documentation/i2c/smbus-protocol to make it more obious, though. On a related note, you will notice that the other i2c_smbus_* functions do not follow the naming of SMBus transactions. Again that's something I regret but I feel that changing the names now would cause a lot of confusion amongst developers, so I'm not doing it. > > Mixing code cleanups with functional changes is a Bad Idea (TM). > > I am happy to bother you with a separate patch including style fixes. I > can even create a handful of them, grouping functionally consistent > changes. Just one patch should be enough, if I agree with all the changes. You might make a separate patch with the things I may not agree with, so that you don't have to cherry-revert them if I indeed don't agree, and we just merge them if I do agree. > > > dev_info(&client->dev, > > > - "chip found, driver version " DRV_VERSION "\n"); > > > + "%s chip found, driver version " DRV_VERSION "\n", > > > + client->name); > > > > Incorrect change, dev_info() already includes the chip name. > > My system must be a notable exception then, as this change modifies > output: > > rtc-m41t80 1-0068: chip found, driver version 0.05 > > to: > > rtc-m41t80 1-0068: m41t81 chip found, driver version 0.05 > > here. My bad, for some reason I thought that dev_printk() included the device name but it in fact includes the driver name. I was wrong, just ignore me. -- Jean Delvare
