From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com ([213.167.242.64]:49194 "EHLO perceval.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932620AbeGJMPu (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2018 08:15:50 -0400 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Akinobu Mita , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Peter Rosin , Sebastian Reichel , Jacopo Mondi , Hans Verkuil , Sakari Ailus , Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v3 1/2] i2c: add SCCB helpers Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:16:21 +0300 Message-ID: <30027540.g4E5J49NzT@avalon> In-Reply-To: <20180710120747.s7yg36moaw2xsrim@tetsubishi> References: <1531150874-4595-1-git-send-email-akinobu.mita@gmail.com> <5320256.KVvq6sUnyz@avalon> <20180710120747.s7yg36moaw2xsrim@tetsubishi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Wolfram, On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 15:07:47 EEST Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> +static inline int sccb_read_byte(struct i2c_client *client, u8 addr) > >> +{ > >> + int ret; > >> + union i2c_smbus_data data; > >> + > >> + i2c_lock_bus(client->adapter, I2C_LOCK_SEGMENT); > >> + > >> + ret = __i2c_smbus_xfer(client->adapter, client->addr, client->flags, > >> + I2C_SMBUS_WRITE, addr, I2C_SMBUS_BYTE, NULL); > >> + if (ret < 0) > >> + goto out; > >> + > >> + ret = __i2c_smbus_xfer(client->adapter, client->addr, client->flags, > >> + I2C_SMBUS_READ, 0, I2C_SMBUS_BYTE, &data); > >> +out: > >> + i2c_unlock_bus(client->adapter, I2C_LOCK_SEGMENT); > >> + > >> + return ret < 0 ? ret : data.byte; > >> +} > > > > I think I mentioned in a previous review of this patch that the function > > is too big to be a static inline. It should instead be moved to a .c file. > > Can be argued. Especially if sccb_read_byte() is called in multiple places in a driver, not just once in a read helper, as you've advised for patch 2/2 in this series :-) > I assume just removing the 'inline' won't do it for you? Just removing the inline keyword will create many instances of the function, even when not used. I think it will also cause the compiler to emit warnings for unused functions. I don't think that's a good idea. > I'd be fine with that, there are not many SCCB useres out there... > > But if you insist on drivers/i2c/i2c-sccb.c, then it should be a > seperate module, I'd think? Given how small the functions are, I wouldn't request that, as it would introduce another Kconfig symbol, but I'm not opposed to such a new module either. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart