From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] eeprom: at24: Add support for address-width property Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:11:43 +0300 Message-ID: References: <1529994128-26770-1-git-send-email-alanx.chiang@intel.com> <1529994128-26770-3-git-send-email-alanx.chiang@intel.com> <20180626064736.msxcnsi5rsnxp62k@kekkonen.localdomain> <0772C36F3434E145A062D024A4869A09010AA12F@PGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <0772C36F3434E145A062D024A4869A09010AA12F@PGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Chiang, AlanX" , Sakari Ailus Cc: "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" , "Yeh, Andy" , "Mani, Rajmohan" , "andy.shevchenko@gmail.com" , "brgl@bgdev.pl" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 15:11 +0800, Chiang, AlanX wrote: > If it is, I would like to modify it as below: > > case 8: > If (chip->flags & AT24_FLAG_ADDR16) { > chip->flags &= ~AT24_FLAG_ADDR16; > dev_warn(dev, "address-width is 8, clear the ADDR16 > bit\n"); > } > break; No need to put bit clearing inside the loop, something like below would be slightly better. if (chip->flags & AT24_FLAG_ADDR16) dev_warn(dev, "address-width is 8, clear the ADDR16 bit\n"); chip->flags &= ~AT24_FLAG_ADDR16; On top of this the message would sound clearer if you put it like "Override address width to be 8, while default is 16" -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy