From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com (Sergei Shtylyov)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:22:22 +0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: shmobile: R8A7779: add Ether support
In-Reply-To: <87txnocw6n.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
References: <201304020204.54546.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
 <87wqsl6ale.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
 <515AC546.90905@cogentembedded.com>
 <87txnocw6n.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
Message-ID: <515C2D0E.8010607@cogentembedded.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hello.

On 03-04-2013 4:08, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:

>>> Then, this (void *pdata) should be
>>> (struct sh_eth_plat_data *pdata) IMO

>>      ether_device.dev.platform_data is 'void *'. I didn't want to bring in
>> extra header for the little use.

> Not enough reason for me.

> "void *" means there is no pointer check,
> and extra header is just 1 line. No ?

    There's no pointer check either if we just initialize the 'platform_data'
member as part of the platfrom device initializer, so we can actually stuff 
pointer to any nonsense there. Why make this case different?

> If you want to use this style,
> then, additional extra header is fate, IMO

    We can agree to disagree here. :-)

WBR, Sergei