Hi Andy,

> > Here, the initialization to 0 is missing, so some values are broken.
> 
> Yes, and this is fine. They are not being used. So, the idea is, whenever we
> pass "false" as a parameter to the function we must take care of all fields we
> are using.

Can be argued. Still, uninitialized values look a little sloppy IMO. I
had a patch on top of this series to print the generated values as debug
output, and '0' looks much more intentional there.

> > Why don't we just drop the pointer and init the array directly?
> > 
> > 	struct i2c_timings t = {
> > 		.bus_freq_hz = ...
> > 		...
> > 	}
> 
> I can do it if you think it's better. I have no strong opinion here.
> From code prospective I guess it will be something similar anyway.

I like it better. Easier to read in the code, no need for a seperate
pointer. I can fix it locally here, though.

Thanks!

   Wolfram