From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 21:39:30 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c: use macros for i2c_msg initialization Message-Id: <1349645970.15802.12.camel@joe-AO722> List-Id: References: <1349624323-15584-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <1349624323-15584-3-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <5071AEF3.6080108@bfs.de> <5071B834.1010200@bfs.de> <1349633780.15802.8.camel@joe-AO722> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Julia Lawall Cc: walter harms , Antti Palosaari , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, rmallon@gmail.com, shubhrajyoti@ti.com, Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 20:56 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > >> Some people thought that it would be nice to have the macros rather than > >> the inlined field initializations, especially since there is no flag for > >> write. A separate question is whether an array of one element is useful, > >> or whether one should systematically use & on a simple variable of the > >> structure type. I'm open to suggestions about either point. > > > > I think the macro naming is not great. > > > > Maybe add DEFINE_/DECLARE_/_INIT or something other than an action > > name type to the macro names. > > DEFINE and DECLARE usually have a declared variable as an argument, which > is not the case here. > > These macros are like the macros PCI_DEVICE and PCI_DEVICE_CLASS. I understand that. > Are READ and WRITE the action names? They are really the important > information in this case. Yes, most (all?) uses of _READ and _WRITE macros actually perform some I/O. > > I think the consistency is better if all the references are done > > as arrays, even for single entry arrays. > > Is it worth creating arrays where &msg is used? Or would it be better to > leave that aspect as it is? Reasonable arguments can be made either way.