Ben,
>> - struct i2c_pnx_algo_data *alg_data)
>> + struct i2c_pnx_algo_data *alg_data, int repeated)
>
> bool repeated.
I don't agree.
Since this is C and C++, we do not have a bool keyword.
And, there is no variable declared as bool in the source file this
is why and defined this as int and not as bool.
>> + if ((!repeated) && (wait_timeout(I2C_PNX_TIMEOUT, alg_data))) {
>
> no need for () around !repeated.
Agreed, but for the clarity sake.
>> + if((i > 0) && !(pmsg->flags & I2C_M_NOSTART))
>
> no need for () around i > 0
Same as above. I my opinion it is better to use more parentheses then
fewer, since you do not rely on compiler implementation.
Regards,
Matej
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
