Re: [PATCH 12/13] drivers/media/tuners/max2165.c: use macros fori2c_msg initialization

[Julia Lawall]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Ryan Mallon wrote:

> On 08/10/12 02:38, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > Introduce use of I2c_MSG_READ/WRITE/OP, for readability.
> >
> > A length expressed as an explicit constant is also re-expressed as the size
> > of the buffer, when this is possible.
> >
> > The second case is simplified to use simple variables rather than arrays.
> > The variable b0 is dropped completely, and the variable reg that it
> > contains is used instead.  The variable b1 is replaced by a u8-typed
> > variable named buf (the name used earlier in the file).  The uses of b1 are
> > then adjusted accordingly.
> >
> > A simplified version of the semantic patch that makes this change is as
> > follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> >
> > // <smpl>
> > @@
> > expression a,b,c;
> > identifier x;
> > @@
> >
> > struct i2c_msg x =
> > - {.addr = a, .buf = b, .len = c, .flags = I2C_M_RD}
> > + I2C_MSG_READ(a,b,c)
> >  ;
> >
> > @@
> > expression a,b,c;
> > identifier x;
> > @@
> >
> > struct i2c_msg x =
> > - {.addr = a, .buf = b, .len = c, .flags = 0}
> > + I2C_MSG_WRITE(a,b,c)
> >  ;
> >
> > @@
> > expression a,b,c,d;
> > identifier x;
> > @@
> >
> > struct i2c_msg x =
> > - {.addr = a, .buf = b, .len = c, .flags = d}
> > + I2C_MSG_OP(a,b,c,d)
> >  ;
> > // </smpl>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> >
> >  drivers/media/tuners/max2165.c |   13 ++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/tuners/max2165.c b/drivers/media/tuners/max2165.c
> > index ba84936..6638617 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/tuners/max2165.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/tuners/max2165.c
> > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static int max2165_write_reg(struct max2165_priv *priv, u8 reg, u8 data)
> >  {
> >  	int ret;
> >  	u8 buf[] = { reg, data };
> > -	struct i2c_msg msg = { .flags = 0, .buf = buf, .len = 2 };
> > +	struct i2c_msg msg = I2C_MSG_WRITE(0, buf, sizeof(buf));
> >
> >  	msg.addr = priv->config->i2c_address;
> >
> > @@ -68,11 +68,10 @@ static int max2165_read_reg(struct max2165_priv *priv, u8 reg, u8 *p_data)
> >  	int ret;
> >  	u8 dev_addr = priv->config->i2c_address;
> >
> > -	u8 b0[] = { reg };
> > -	u8 b1[] = { 0 };
> > +	u8 buf;
> >  	struct i2c_msg msg[] = {
> > -		{ .addr = dev_addr, .flags = 0, .buf = b0, .len = 1 },
> > -		{ .addr = dev_addr, .flags = I2C_M_RD, .buf = b1, .len = 1 },
> > +		I2C_MSG_WRITE(dev_addr, &reg, sizeof(reg)),
> > +		I2C_MSG_READ(dev_addr, &buf, sizeof(buf)),
> >  	};
>
> Not sure if the array changes should be done here or as a separate
> patch. Some of the other patches also have cases where single index
> arrays (both buffers and messages) could be converted. Should either
> convert all or none of them. I think its probably best to do as a
> separate series on top of this though.

OK, I will do it that way.

thanks,
julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/