From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:16:25 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] clk: Move init fields from clk to clk_hw In-Reply-To: References: <1332214706-675-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> <1332214706-675-2-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> <20120320072018.GC32469@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <20120320094031.GI3852@pengutronix.de> <20120320141811.GF32469@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <20120320181050.GN3852@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20120321091625.GR3852@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:47:42PM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hello Sascha > > On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > [ C99 structure initializer elided ] > > > > This will make a 4000 line file out of a 500 line file. Now when for > > some reason struct clk_divider changes we end with big patches. If the > > clk core gets a new fancy CLK_ flag which we want to have then again > > we end up with big patches. Then there's also the possibility that > > someone finds out that .lock and .hw.flags are common to all dividers > > and comes up with a #define DEFINE_CLK_DIVIDER again to share common > > fields. > > At least we can understand easily what is being changed. Readability, > particularly by others not familiar with the clock data, is more important > to me. > > So like Saravana, I too prefer C99 structure initializers. At least there > should be a choice. > > Quick quiz: in this line below: > > imx_clk_divider("foo_clk", "bar_clk", CCM_BASE + 0x20, 0x5, 0x3); > > which field is the bitfield shift and which is the bitfield width? :-) I can't even remember the argument order in memset, but I never voted for a struct memset_init ;) Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |