From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 12:08:29 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v5 2/7] mailbox: arm_mhu: add driver for ARM MHU controller In-Reply-To: References: <1422955310-6542-1-git-send-email-Vincent.Yang@tw.fujitsu.com> <3540319.u6RL7AO77m@wuerfel> <2790199.44Rvt91EcZ@wuerfel> Message-ID: <20150205120829.GO8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 05:32:39PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Feb 5, 2015 5:13 PM, "Arnd Bergmann" wrote: > > > > > > > > I know typedef's are frowned upon, but how bad is the following option? > > > typedef void* mbox_data_info > > > int mbox_send_message(struct mbox_chan *chan, mbox_data_info > data); > > > > I don't see how that would help. > > > If it's abuse because the argument is a void*... What if we called it > mbox_data_info? To say platforms are free to pass data as a pointer or a > value :) Using a typedef really doesn't change anything. If you read the kernel coding style, you'll realise that typedefs are a reason to reject patches - especially to use them in the way you are proposing. Try the solution I suggested (which I notice was seemingly totally ignored.) -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.