From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Lawnick Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c-algo-bit: Refactor adapter registration Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:59:18 +0100 Message-ID: <4CFF56F6.1000606@gmx.de> References: <20101207110631.6222cfed@endymion.delvare> <20101207115131.GM20097@trinity.fluff.org> <4CFE21A7.9020901@gmx.de> <20101207182943.1e31507b@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101207182943.1e31507b-R0o5gVi9kd7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: Ben Dooks , Linux I2C List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Jean Delvare said the following: > Hi Michael, Ben, > > On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:59:35 +0100, Michael Lawnick wrote: >> Ben Dooks said the following: >> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:06:31AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: >> >> Use a function pointer to decide whether to call i2c_add_adapter or >> >> i2c_add_numbered_adapter. This makes the code more compact than the >> >> current strategy of having the common code in a separate function. >> > >> > ok, how about changing i2c_add_numbered_adapter to take a -1 to mean >> > assign bus number automatically? or something similar? >> >> IMHO better: i2c_add_adapter with optional (-1) bus parameter? > > Which problem are you both trying to solve, please? > Function pointers tend to hide information. Seeing the targeted function in source code makes it more clear, IMHO. -- KR Michael