Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] i2c: iproc: Add Broadcom iProc I2C Driver

Wolfram Sang
2015-01-18T11:43:07Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1277 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:17:59PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Wolfram,
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:06:58PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:47:41AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:14:04AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> > > > On 01/17/15 00:42, Ray Jui wrote:
> > > > >+ complete_all(&iproc_i2c->done);
> > > >
> > > > Looking over this code it seems to me there is always a single
> > > > process waiting for iproc_i2c->done to complete. So using complete()
> > > > here would suffice.
> > > Yeah, there is always only a single thread waiting. That means both
> > > complete and complete_all are suitable. AFAIK there is no reason to pick
> > > one over the other in this case.
> >
> > Clarity?
> And which do you consider more clear? complete_all might result in the
> question: "Is there >1 waiter?" and complete might yield to "What about
> the other waiters?". If you already know there is only one, both are on
> par on clarity. Might only be me?! I don't care much.

It is minor, I agree: If I read complete_all, I assume there is
something fishy if there is only one waiter. It doesn't match. It might
work, but I'll wonder if this is accidently or intentionally.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]