From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julia Lawall Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:56:19 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c: use macros for i2c_msg initialization Message-Id: 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: <1349633780.15802.8.camel@joe-AO722> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Joe Perches Cc: Julia Lawall , 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 >> 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. Are READ and WRITE the action names? They are really the important information in this case. > 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? julia