I find that the developers often just specified the numeric value
when calling a macro which is defined with a parameter for access permission.
As we know, these numeric value for access permission have had the
corresponding macro,
and that using macro can improve the robustness and readability of the code,
thus, I suggest replacing the numeric parameter with the macro.
Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng....@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <baolex...@intel.com>
---
drivers/media/pci/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/pci/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c
b/drivers/media/pci/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c
index d43911d..ab65dec 100644
--- a/drivers/media/pci/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c
+++ b/drivers/media/pci/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c
@@ -41,16 +41,16 @@
static int i2c_debug;
static int i2c_hw;
static int i2c_scan;
-module_param(i2c_debug, int, 0644);
+module_param(i2c_debug, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(i2c_debug, "configure i2c debug level");
-module_param(i2c_hw, int, 0444);
+module_param(i2c_hw, int, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(i2c_hw,"force use of hardware i2c support, "
"instead of software bitbang");
-module_param(i2c_scan, int, 0444);
+module_param(i2c_scan, int, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(i2c_scan,"scan i2c bus at insmod time");
static unsigned int i2c_udelay = 5;
-module_param(i2c_udelay, int, 0444);
+module_param(i2c_udelay, int, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(i2c_udelay,"soft i2c delay at insmod time, in usecs "
"(should be 5 or higher). Lower value means higher bus speed.");
--
2.9.2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
