From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c-algo-bit: Refactor adapter registration Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:29:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20101207182943.1e31507b@endymion.delvare> References: <20101207110631.6222cfed@endymion.delvare> <20101207115131.GM20097@trinity.fluff.org> <4CFE21A7.9020901@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4CFE21A7.9020901-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Michael Lawnick Cc: Ben Dooks , Linux I2C List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org 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? -- Jean Delvare