From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:48:22 +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> <20131204100728.GA907@lee--X1> Message-ID: <20131204114822.GD907@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 11:07, schrieb Lee Jones: > > 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? > > True, the inline I could have done without moving the struct and the > function. Would you like me to create another revision doing this? > > But moving the function needs moving of the struct tps6586x > declaration... > > [Sorry, this time with answer all] Do you know what, it's really not that important. Patch applied. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog