From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] i2c: mxs: Rework the PIO mode operation Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 00:18:12 +0200 Message-ID: <201308070018.12773.marex@denx.de> References: <1375219237-9594-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de> <201308061535.50470.marex@denx.de> <20130806211348.GA3429@katana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130806211348.GA3429@katana> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Alexandre Belloni , Christoph Baumann , Fabio Estevam , Shawn Guo , Torsten Fleischer List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Dear Wolfram Sang, > > I agree, but I still don't like squashing the two patches together. I > > forgot to mention it last time, but please, look at the patches one more > > time. Jurgens' does the DT change and mine fixes the PIO on MX23, I'd > > like to keep these changes separate. > > Ok, as said, I am not pushing hard on this. Thanks! > > > Then, add the comment to the check so ppl will notice there? > > > > If I could add a big red flashing sign into the code stating "If you go > > over 4 bytes here, a kitten will die", then by all means, I would add > > it. Unfortunatelly, there is no such thing possible. > > I'd say if somebody changes the code with that comment on top of it, it > is really deserved... You mean the kitten ... ? ;-) > > Maybe WARN_ONCE and return with error might just work? > > ... but if you insist, I can accept this. Thinking about it harder, WARN might be more appropriate. Maybe I'll just remove it altogether, I'll think about it some more. Best regards, Marek Vasut