Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220718153448.173652-1-jason.gerecke@wacom.com>
 <20220803145937.698603-1-jason.gerecke@wacom.com> <CAHp75Vd6yEctJoNT6TpJ1+h4ZQckyLsaUSeSCV4MHqg+LUDkcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANRwn3TutF6skHQHk08dFUa8gLMVGxui_QN7YK6nDacSpRHtLg@mail.gmail.com> <Y1BZ8CjSnrKi+Yos@shikoro>
In-Reply-To: <Y1BZ8CjSnrKi+Yos@shikoro>
From:   Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:48:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CANRwn3SmrGX2-cqMK=dDTJR=OaxoVM9C+fsaa8jz96ADtH02DA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa-dev@sang-engineering.com>,
        Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ping Cheng <pinglinux@gmail.com>,
        "Tobita, Tatsunosuke" <tatsunosuke.tobita@wacom.com>,
        Jason Gerecke <jason.gerecke@wacom.com>,
        Ping Cheng <ping.cheng@wacom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 1:11 PM Wolfram Sang
<wsa-dev@sang-engineering.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > I believe you need to create a coccinelle script and run it over the
> > > kernel source tree and then create a patch out of it.
> >
> > This would definitely be necessary to unify all callers to using
> > unsigned variables rather than just swapping which callers generate
> > the pointer-sign warnings.
>
> I am all for using u8 because this is the proper type.
>
> Yet, if we touch this function argument, I'd also like to remove all
> inconsistencies once and for all. Removing some warnings here and add
> some there is not a good choice IMO. However, how to do this switch of
> types cleanly without too much churn, I sadly have no good idea yet.
>

I spent a little time trying to put together a Coccinelle script to
take care of everything but I eventually realized the size of the task
was larger than I was comfortable with. In particular, even though I
might be able to put together a script, I worry I don't have a good
way to test the resulting treewide changes to avoid regression.