From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-170.mta1.migadu.com (out-170.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5A053F9F39 for ; Thu, 7 May 2026 14:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.170 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778163295; cv=none; b=vD5KruACwdCh1z/0S1DSmGudnrfOLwNEGbRR+IOYfLuG+nSd0D0uQ6J8+ADYm4suP7+Rnwecb8J76Z80lA7Yfwpg31ZGU7pRvWCg+J0gBvxYOcV+kvQTq0ATipieB/zafvinduUXAj7/Pgzap7+ltNEFHR2pYVyt+/tUKlwppbQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778163295; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WIhu0wYnJyrvSYbeuljEAyq+IEcxszOQzuXrD9EtvEs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dyuE+t6Z9C5fI5mfJueoiLy877awUF7ALFK2NCUZQQgafoW1q508HNDutS04ou8emKbgdzMRK+siGN6Ng2hVojLnXbz0pr5+xJzgIYWlQhQm14CZiIRC76YeatVLzujXU9a2TLb+JE0CwlPb+43cjY2f3JciYeAnRLoz97w9U1o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=N1QvLF6c; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.170 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="N1QvLF6c" Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 16:14:43 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1778163290; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Z3zyGjB1fpQYSZie+INjNoOoXe5WVMNpCWir9pzN85E=; b=N1QvLF6cyNpVTsgwyTJO6rkO9qh5fqbvNrkHNmNpUf9+n6XJdQoeI0gsnrTfa+nYXOsGPa LmeKSZngySBjJH/Daus8OWCUFWAzOs1dYltqgEJtmLMQxuVSisMun+UYlUh/g2pkyriuMu ELZOH7zS9V0OHQ5nELr4vIpxW8pDOZo= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Thorsten Blum To: Lee Jones Cc: Wolfram Sang , Andreas Werner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: menf21bmc: inline i2c_check_functionality check Message-ID: References: <20260428165800.590496-3-thorsten.blum@linux.dev> <20260507134708.GN305027@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260507134708.GN305027@google.com> X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Hi Lee, On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 02:47:08PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 28 Apr 2026, Thorsten Blum wrote: > > > Inline the i2c_check_functionality() check, since the function returns a > > boolean status rather than an error code. > > This my well be a personal thing, but I don't generally like functions > being stuffed into if () statements. So this one is a no I'm afraid. > Please leave it as it is. Wolfram (cc'ed) asked me to change the call sites before applying this patch: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260421161607.61314-3-thorsten.blum@linux.dev/ Also, nearly all i2c_check_functionality() call sites already use it as a boolean value. There are only 2-3 call sites left where it's still used as an int. Should I send a v2 with a local bool variable, or would you reconsider inlining it? Thanks, Thorsten