From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c: use macros for i2c_msg initialization Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:36:40 +0100 (CET) Message-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> <1349645970.15802.12.camel@joe-AO722> <1349646718.15802.16.camel@joe-AO722> <20121007225639.364a41b4@infradead.org> <50723661.6040107@gmail.com> <20121009203238.63d2275f@infradead.org> <20121218124640.5b1e7176@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121218124640.5b1e7176-R0o5gVi9kd7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: Julia Lawall , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Ryan Mallon , Joe Perches , walter harms , ben-linux-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, w.sang-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Antti Palosaari , kernel-janitors-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, shubhrajyoti-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org, linux-media-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 18 Dec 2012, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Julia, > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:45:43 +0200 (CEST), Julia Lawall wrote: > > I found 6 cases where there are more than 2 messages in the array. I > > didn't check how many cases where there are two messages but there is > > something other than one read and one write. > > > > Perhaps a reasonable option would be to use > > > > I2C_MSG_READ > > I2C_MSG_WRITE > > I2C_MSG_READ_OP > > I2C_MSG_WRITE_OP > > > > The last two are for the few cases where more flags are specified. As > > compared to the original proposal of I2C_MSG_OP, these keep the READ or > > WRITE idea in the macro name. The additional argument to the OP macros > > would be or'd with the read or write (nothing to do in this case) flags as > > appropriate. > > > > Mauro proposed INIT_I2C_READ_SUBADDR for the very common case where a > > message array has one read and one write. I think that putting one > > I2C_MSG_READ and one I2C_MSG_WRITE in this case is readable enough, and > > avoids the need to do something special for the cases that don't match the > > expectations of INIT_I2C_READ_SUBADDR. > > > > I propose not to do anything for the moment either for sizes or for > > message or buffer arrays that contain only one element. > > Please note that I resigned from my position of i2c subsystem > maintainer, so I will not handle this. If you think this is important, > you'll have to resubmit and Wolfram will decide what he wants to do > about it. OK, I had the impression that the conclusion was that the danger was greater than the benefit. If there is interest in it, since I think it does make the code more readable, I can pick it up again. julia