From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] i2c: iproc: Add Broadcom iProc I2C Driver
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 12:46:51 +0100
Message-ID: <54BB9D2B.20408@broadcom.com>
References: <rjui@broadcom.com> <1421451737-7107-1-git-send-email-rjui@broadcom.com> <1421451737-7107-3-git-send-email-rjui@broadcom.com> <54BB795C.6040402@broadcom.com> <20150118094741.GE22880@pengutronix.de> <20150118110658.GA1113@katana> <20150118111759.GG22880@pengutronix.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150118111759.GG22880@pengutronix.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=F6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>, Ray Jui <rjui@broadcom.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Christian Daudt <bcm@fixthebug.org>, Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, Scott Branden <sbranden@broadcom.com>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>, Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>, Matt Porter <mporter@linaro.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>, Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

On 01/18/15 12:17, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote:
> Hello Wolfram,
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:06:58PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:47:41AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:14:04AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>>>> On 01/17/15 00:42, Ray Jui wrote:
>>>>> +	complete_all(&iproc_i2c->done);
>>>>
>>>> Looking over this code it seems to me there is always a single
>>>> process waiting for iproc_i2c->done to complete. So using complete=
()
>>>> here would suffice.
>>> Yeah, there is always only a single thread waiting. That means both
>>> complete and complete_all are suitable. AFAIK there is no reason to=
 pick
>>> one over the other in this case.
>>
>> Clarity?
> And which do you consider more clear? complete_all might result in th=
e
> question: "Is there>1 waiter?" and complete might yield to "What abou=
t
> the other waiters?". If you already know there is only one, both are =
on
> par on clarity. Might only be me?! I don't care much.

Maybe it is me, but it is not about questions but it is about implicit=20
statements that the code makes (or reader derives from it). When using=20
complete_all you indicate to the reader "there can be more than one=20
waiter". When using complete it indicates "there is only one waiter". I=
f=20
those statements are not true that is a code issue/bug.

Regards,
Arend

> Best regards
> Uwe
>