From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: eric.y.miao@gmail.com (Eric Miao) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:10:52 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Voipac PXA270 In-Reply-To: <201003101620.17501.marek.vasut@gmail.com> References: <201003100247.27059.marek.vasut@gmail.com> <201003101237.26819.marek.vasut@gmail.com> <20100310133529.GK28972@buzzloop.caiaq.de> <201003101620.17501.marek.vasut@gmail.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > Dne St 10. b?ezna 2010 14:35:29 Daniel Mack napsal(a): >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:37:26PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> > Dne St 10. b?ezna 2010 07:18:40 Mike Rapoport napsal(a): >> > > Do these defines really deserve dedicated .h file? Why cannot they live >> > > in the arch/arm/mach-pxa/vpac270.c? >> > >> > I'm not moving this in. I dont want to polute the .c file with stuff that >> > should obviously go into the header file. Besides there'll be more GPIOs >> > defined and that'd make the .c file less readable, which I want to avoid. >> >> The question is - are they shared? If they're not and will never be used >> by anything else then this .c file, I'd also vote for not having an >> extra header file for them. >> >> Daniel >> > Yes, they are used in the PCMCIA driver. And I'd rather avoid having GPIO > definitions scattered across multiple files. > Mmm... that's because PCMCIA driver is not abstracted well enough to allow all platform specific stuffs back into board file. Once that's done, these shared definitions could be avoided to live in a separate header file. For now, it's OK.