From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (Boris Brezillon) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:57:07 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 4/7] crypto: marvell: Moving the tdma chain out of mv_cesa_tdma_req In-Reply-To: <57629562.9030908@free-electrons.com> References: <1466018134-10779-1-git-send-email-romain.perier@free-electrons.com> <1466018134-10779-5-git-send-email-romain.perier@free-electrons.com> <20160615224249.3e1e477b@bbrezillon> <57629562.9030908@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20160616145707.34ba532d@bbrezillon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:02:42 +0200 Romain Perier wrote: > > Now that the dma specific fields are part of the base request there's no > > reason to keep this union. > > > > You can just put struct mv_cesa_req base; directly under struct > > mv_cesa_ablkcipher_req, and move mv_cesa_ablkcipher_std_req fields in > > mv_cesa_ablkcipher_req. > > > Well, I think that I might keep the changes related to mv_cesa_tdma_req > in this commit (+ put struct mv_cesa_req base; direct under struct > mv_cesa_ablkcipher_req) and move the changes related to > mv_cesa_ablkcipher_std_req into another commit. What do you think ? After re-reading the code, I'm not sure the last part (moving mv_cesa_ablkcipher_std_req fields into mv_cesa_ablkcipher_req) is a good idea anymore. So let's just kill the union, and move mv_cesa_ablkcipher_std_req and mv_cesa_req base in mv_cesa_ablkcipher_req (you'll also have to remove the base field from the mv_cesa_ablkcipher_std_req struct). -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com