From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [216.208.38.106] (helo=lapdancer.baythorne.internal) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.14 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 19glny-0002s9-7l for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:43:18 +0100 From: David Woodhouse To: "J.D. Bakker" In-Reply-To: References: <1059147413.28255.40.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> <1059148567.28255.47.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> Message-Id: <1059313332.9895.3.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:42:15 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Handling multiple NAND chips List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 2003-07-27 at 08:54, J.D. Bakker wrote: > What is the return value for select_chip supposed to be ? Current CVS > is a bit ambiguous in this regard (understandably, considering the > newness). Currently void -- I can't imagine cases where it could fail. I suppose I'll probably turn out to be wrong though... > Style question: unsigned char, __u8, u_char, u_int8_t or uint8_t ? > The kernel part of CVS uses all five in different places. unsigned char, uint8_t and u_char are the only ones I'd want to see -- and the latter only if it's already in use. One of the former two in new code, please -- preferably 'unsigned char' I think. I reserve the right to do otherwise, and to change my mind -- not necessarily in that order. -- dwmw2