On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 08:46:41PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > There are a lot places in the i2c API where int is used when the > parameter can't be negative. For example, there are more.... > > /* > * The master routines are the ones normally used to transmit data to devices > * on a bus (or read from them). Apart from two basic transfer functions to > * transmit one message at a time, a more complex version can be used to > * transmit an arbitrary number of messages without interruption. > */ > extern int i2c_master_send(struct i2c_client *,const char* ,int); > extern int i2c_master_recv(struct i2c_client *,char* ,int); > > /* Transfer num messages. > */ > extern int i2c_transfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg > *msgs, int num); > > u8 level; /* nesting level for lockdep */ > > > Wouldn't these generate more efficient code if switched to uints?
I'm not sure, most of the time there's not a lot of difference between the signed and unsigned case. If you can provide an example of where this is actually true then I would be interested to see... Technically, an unsigned int or simply an unsigned would be a reasonable change given that you can't really have a minus number of transfers. -- Ben ([EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.fluff.org/) 'a smiley only costs 4 bytes' _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
