From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mfd: tps6586x: add version detection Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:07:28 +0000 Message-ID: <20131204100728.GA907@lee--X1> References: <77384d24810d9a22fc04cad6f7468f54a9cbaafe.1386108712.git.stefan@agner.ch> <20131204081021.GB7469@lee--X1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Stefan Agner Cc: swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org, thierry.reding-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, dev-8ppwABl0HbeELgA04lAiVw@public.gmane.org, lgirdwood-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, kai.poggensee-RM9K5IK7kjKj5M59NBduVrNAH6kLmebB@public.gmane.org, sameo-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 04 Dec 2013, Stefan Agner wrote: > Am 2013-12-04 09:10, schrieb Lee Jones: > >> +int tps6586x_get_version(struct device *dev) > >> +{ > >> + struct tps6586x *tps6586x =3D dev_get_drvdata(dev); > >> + > >> + return tps6586x->version; > >> +} > >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tps6586x_get_version); > >=20 > > I thought Mark suggested that this routine was converted to a 'stat= ic > > inline' and moved into the header? Did you not think this was a goo= d > > idea? > As I pointed out in the comment above, the struct tps6586x is in the = C > file, so I would need to move that too. That's why I did not made tha= t > change in the end. What do you think, should I still move (and move t= he > struct too?)=20 Why would the struct have to be moved if the function is inline? --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:07:28 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v4 1/3] mfd: tps6586x: add version detection In-Reply-To: References: <77384d24810d9a22fc04cad6f7468f54a9cbaafe.1386108712.git.stefan@agner.ch> <20131204081021.GB7469@lee--X1> Message-ID: <20131204100728.GA907@lee--X1> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 04 Dec 2013, Stefan Agner wrote: > Am 2013-12-04 09:10, schrieb Lee Jones: > >> +int tps6586x_get_version(struct device *dev) > >> +{ > >> + struct tps6586x *tps6586x = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > >> + > >> + return tps6586x->version; > >> +} > >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tps6586x_get_version); > > > > I thought Mark suggested that this routine was converted to a 'static > > inline' and moved into the header? Did you not think this was a good > > idea? > As I pointed out in the comment above, the struct tps6586x is in the C > file, so I would need to move that too. That's why I did not made that > change in the end. What do you think, should I still move (and move the > struct too?) Why would the struct have to be moved if the function is inline? -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755371Ab3LDKHl (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 05:07:41 -0500 Received: from mail-yh0-f41.google.com ([209.85.213.41]:64106 "EHLO mail-yh0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755051Ab3LDKHh (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 05:07:37 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:07:28 +0000 From: Lee Jones To: Stefan Agner Cc: swarren@wwwdotorg.org, thierry.reding@gmail.com, dev@lynxeye.de, lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, kai.poggensee@avionic-design.de, sameo@linux.intel.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mfd: tps6586x: add version detection Message-ID: <20131204100728.GA907@lee--X1> References: <77384d24810d9a22fc04cad6f7468f54a9cbaafe.1386108712.git.stefan@agner.ch> <20131204081021.GB7469@lee--X1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 04 Dec 2013, Stefan Agner wrote: > Am 2013-12-04 09:10, schrieb Lee Jones: > >> +int tps6586x_get_version(struct device *dev) > >> +{ > >> + struct tps6586x *tps6586x = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > >> + > >> + return tps6586x->version; > >> +} > >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tps6586x_get_version); > > > > I thought Mark suggested that this routine was converted to a 'static > > inline' and moved into the header? Did you not think this was a good > > idea? > As I pointed out in the comment above, the struct tps6586x is in the C > file, so I would need to move that too. That's why I did not made that > change in the end. What do you think, should I still move (and move the > struct too?) Why would the struct have to be moved if the function is inline? -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog