Re: More i2c auto configuration improvements

2018-06-15 Thread Martin Husemann
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 08:00:36PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote: > I think it boils down to which lines I typed myself :-) (I tend to > prefer (...), personally). Well, "return" is an operator, not a function - but more importantly the style document was changed at some point in the past to not use

Re: More i2c auto configuration improvements

2018-06-14 Thread Jason Thorpe
> On Jun 14, 2018, at 3:12 PM, Paul Goyette wrote: > > BTW, why do you use > > return (0); > > in some of the drivers, while others use > > return 0; > > ? > > Shouldn't we standardise on one or the other? I think it boils down to which lines I typed myself :-) (I tend to pr

Re: More i2c auto configuration improvements

2018-06-14 Thread Paul Goyette
BTW, why do you use return (0); in some of the drivers, while others use return 0; ? Shouldn't we standardise on one or the other? Sorry, just nit-picking - the actual changes look pretty much ok to me. On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Jason Thorpe wrote: I???ve gone through all of

Re: More i2c auto configuration improvements

2018-06-14 Thread Paul Goyette
Man, those "smart quotes" things make your Emails nearly impossible to read. Any chance you can turn it off when sending to NetBSD lists? On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Jason Thorpe wrote: I???ve gone through all of the i2c drivers I can find in the source tree and audited their auto configuration sc

More i2c auto configuration improvements

2018-06-14 Thread Jason Thorpe
I’ve gone through all of the i2c drivers I can find in the source tree and audited their auto configuration scheme. Each of the drivers has been updated to return the “match quality” values introduced in the previous set of changes. To review, those “match quality” values are: — Address-only: