Hi Sricharan,ok.
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 11:14 +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
hmm, why not shift ?+ if (msg->flags & I2C_M_RD)
+ qup->rx_tag_len = (qup->blocks << 1);
here again.
Because it makes reading code harder and because compiler
is smart enough to choose appropriate instruction for
underling CPU architecture.
Ok, will change this function.ok. Will change it to send.+ else
+ qup->rx_tag_len = 0;
+}
+
+static u32 qup_i2c_xfer_data(struct qup_i2c_dev *qup, int len,
+ u8 *buf, int last)
+{
I think that xfer is too vague in this case, prefer write or send.
That was intentional. Using to pack tag and data in to one word across+ static u32 val, idx;
static? please fix.
two calls. So preserving val, idx across calls.
Sorry this is no go! Reorganize the code, please.