From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v5 1/5] usb: host: ehci-st: Add EHCI support for ST STB devices Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 19:57:28 +0200 Message-ID: <202755915.brE74x99uQ@wuerfel> References: <1409937829-23708-1-git-send-email-peter.griffin@linaro.org> <1409937829-23708-2-git-send-email-peter.griffin@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1409937829-23708-2-git-send-email-peter.griffin@linaro.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Griffin Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, srinivas.kandagatla@gmail.com, maxime.coquelin@st.com, patrice.chotard@st.com, lee.jones@linaro.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Friday 05 September 2014 18:23:45 Peter Griffin wrote: > +struct st_platform_priv { > + struct clk *clks[USB_MAX_CLKS]; > + struct clk *clk48; > + struct reset_control *rst; > + struct reset_control *pwr; > + struct phy *phy; > +}; Any reason why this is in a shared header file? It looks like duplicating the structure under two different names would actually be shorter and keep the drivers more readable as they'd be self-contained, even when they have the exact same structure. Do both drivers use all fields? Arnd