Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > wonder even more if we couldn't supply num_adapters to i2c_mux_alloc()
> > > and reserve the memory statically. i2c busses are not
> > > dynamic/hot-pluggable so that should be good enough?
> >
> > Yes, that would work, but it would take some restructuring in some of
> >
> > I'd suggest to rename 'adapters' into 'num_adapters' throughout this
> > patch. I think it makes the code a lot easier to understand.
>
> Hmm, you mean just the variable names, right? And not function names
> such as i2c_mux_reserve_(num_)adapters?
Yes, only variable names.
> > Despite that
Hi!
On 2016-04-11 22:46, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> first high-level review:
>
>> +int i2c_mux_reserve_adapters(struct i2c_mux_core *muxc, int adapters)
>
> I'd suggest to rename 'adapters' into 'num_adapters' throughout this
> patch. I think it makes the code a lot easier to understan
Hi Peter,
first high-level review:
> +int i2c_mux_reserve_adapters(struct i2c_mux_core *muxc, int adapters)
I'd suggest to rename 'adapters' into 'num_adapters' throughout this
patch. I think it makes the code a lot easier to understand.
> +{
> + struct i2c_adapter **adapter;
> +
> + if
4 matches
Mail list logo
