Hi Baruch
On 10/24/2011 4:03 PM, Baruch Siach wrote:
Hi Rajeev,
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 03:28:02PM +0530, Rajeev Kumar wrote:
Since I2C designware registers are 16 bit wide and so we should use
readw/writew.
Signed-off-by: Rajeev Kumar<[email protected]>
---
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware.c | 104 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware.c
b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware.c
index 6eaa681..5149a10 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware.c
@@ -216,11 +216,11 @@ struct dw_i2c_dev {
u32 abort_source;
int irq;
struct i2c_adapter adapter;
- unsigned int tx_fifo_depth;
- unsigned int rx_fifo_depth;
+ u16 tx_fifo_depth;
+ u16 rx_fifo_depth;
};
This looks wrong. The {tx,rx}_fifo_depth fields do not represent bit fields,
but numbers. So unsigned int should be better here.
Yes, I agree with you, but I do not see any possibility of value of
{tx,rx}_fifo_depth fields greater than 2^^16 - 1. So, would not it be
better to keep them as u16 and save just 4 bytes.
~Rajeev
baruch
--
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
