Hi Ivan,

On 03/26/2015 01:01 PM, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:

Hi Sricharan,

On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 11:14 +0530, Sricharan R wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+       if (msg->flags & I2C_M_RD)
+               qup->rx_tag_len = (qup->blocks << 1);

here again.

hmm, why not shift ?

Because it makes reading code harder and because compiler
  is smart enough to choose appropriate instruction for
underling CPU architecture.

ok.

quoted

quoted

quoted

+       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.

ok. Will change it to send.

quoted

quoted

+       static u32 val, idx;

static? please fix.

   That was intentional. Using to pack tag and data in to one word across
   two calls. So preserving val, idx across calls.

Sorry this is no go! Reorganize the code, please.

Ok, will change this function.

Regards,
  Sricharan
-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation