Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] mailbox: arm_mhu: add driver for ARM MHU controller

Arnd Bergmann
2015-02-05T12:31:51Z

On Thursday 05 February 2015 12:08:29 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 05:32:39PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 2015 5:13 PM, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org> 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

I misunderstood then, I thought you were trying to enforce that
people use a proper pointer.

> 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.

Agreed, using a typedef here would add an extra problem rather than
solve the one we already have.

> Try the solution I suggested (which I notice was seemingly totally
> ignored.)

As I understood, Jassi doesn't even have this problem, because his
driver uses a synchronous call rather than an asynchronous one
and he can just pass the data on the stack.

Arnd