From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.188]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1J3IHD-0004Ne-Pf for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:41:07 +0000 From: Arnd Bergmann To: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] Freescale enhanced Local Bus Controller FCM NAND support. Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:40:48 +0100 References: <20071214185624.GA10584@loki.buserror.net> <4762DA95.90000@freescale.com> <20071214195917.GA18616@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20071214195917.GA18616@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200712142240.50379.arnd@arndb.de> Cc: Scott Wood , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, dwmw2@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Friday 14 December 2007, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > >Maybe this desires its own header? > > > > It can be factored out if anything else ever uses it. > > It's just confusing to parse lbc-specific and nand-specific code > placed in the same file. In that case, you could argue for splitting the implementation into two C files. I don't see any reason to move stuff into a header when it's not an interface between two parts of the code, but only describes a hardware interface used by a single driver. Arnd <><