From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753031AbbARLnH (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jan 2015 06:43:07 -0500 Received: from sauhun.de ([89.238.76.85]:53965 "EHLO pokefinder.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751586AbbARLnD (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jan 2015 06:43:03 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 12:42:55 +0100 From: Wolfram Sang To: Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= Cc: Arend van Spriel , Ray Jui , Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Christian Daudt , Russell King , Scott Branden , Pawel Moll , Ian Campbell , Florian Fainelli , Matt Porter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Grant Likely , Kumar Gala , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] i2c: iproc: Add Broadcom iProc I2C Driver Message-ID: <20150118114255.GB1113@katana> References: <1421451737-7107-1-git-send-email-rjui@broadcom.com> <1421451737-7107-3-git-send-email-rjui@broadcom.com> <54BB795C.6040402@broadcom.com> <20150118094741.GE22880@pengutronix.de> <20150118110658.GA1113@katana> <20150118111759.GG22880@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xgyAXRrhYN0wYx8y" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150118111759.GG22880@pengutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --xgyAXRrhYN0wYx8y Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:17:59PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K=C3=B6nig wrote: > Hello Wolfram, >=20 > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:06:58PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:47:41AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K=C3=B6nig wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:14:04AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > > > On 01/17/15 00:42, Ray Jui wrote: > > > > >+ complete_all(&iproc_i2c->done); > > > >=20 > > > > Looking over this code it seems to me there is always a single > > > > process waiting for iproc_i2c->done to complete. So using complete() > > > > here would suffice. > > > Yeah, there is always only a single thread waiting. That means both > > > complete and complete_all are suitable. AFAIK there is no reason to p= ick > > > one over the other in this case. > >=20 > > Clarity? > And which do you consider more clear? complete_all might result in the > question: "Is there >1 waiter?" and complete might yield to "What about > the other waiters?". If you already know there is only one, both are on > par on clarity. Might only be me?! I don't care much. It is minor, I agree: If I read complete_all, I assume there is something fishy if there is only one waiter. It doesn't match. It might work, but I'll wonder if this is accidently or intentionally. --xgyAXRrhYN0wYx8y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUu5w/AAoJEBQN5MwUoCm2geUQAJEnu7R/+Jk/gusjSDqXbpJu CYFKdbI/TrT2YVaSMZBDeUAbv1/TPP3r0hrSxwRNHlUvaM/k/cCj62xm/CG9t2Xq 7YEjjyAFa6jRWeumMbreNcjCLeS2KfeH3L/TNY6C6ZfUJRFlAMyisYJc/Pn4DHdA vsYSik2pPYF9Q0E15ZxrRiO4ixg3BuPwjbyVfhl0XdcjJafQ1WpetCz4HTxD5SJ5 rOA+sqTeClIQ6HoNalk1HytZdarN+i//C8q+WrIzkDBQA9E09CSkaErwYpqiaDU+ PzfdCzZC+wo9+/Qx0c4G+XTeKyMAi7+Qupp+ckUHQI80QIgT6tb8UB6PLSnX212f YQVa0dnD1yUMrxwicKDCUholu5OeTmd1YyEYmIWIPZyb3xNwDPp5cs5pLu9vlTOi Xu6Dw4bqxWQBeKG/RbBTaGunrWA0ALquumya81p6mKhvnCxlWd8B70hdjitD2OXT TU2JugP1s2SV7LAEnFLVPH9IsoJQMGyNgea+uqBaO6shWP68/SryDhJuFRQxvJXY 2sJY22kOG1YIfQCwIRRymxTGlhRmBkU3b4yWvPgTxKfJQNj4rhgOMeNjUsc8Kcdw enZVJRV7RCrMEtGbt3Cuk087DI0MzjBcdp+EXuP3MxZoTUf8C3KaiKsMK/4/WtWK g4tJdmBigKm9ndgaVRRG =KVgA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xgyAXRrhYN0wYx8y--