From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: Common code for TSC 2101 and 2102 Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:04:23 -0700 Message-ID: <200707131304.24074.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <5d5443650707130010i3327f533o9c480f249ea6d796@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-omap-open-source-bounces@linux.omap.com Errors-To: linux-omap-open-source-bounces@linux.omap.com To: andrzej zaborowski Cc: Linux OMAP List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Friday 13 July 2007, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > > do not add new typedefs > > #1796: FILE: include/linux/spi/tsc210x.h:54: > > +typedef void (*tsc210x_touch_t)(void *context, int touching); > > > > do not add new typedefs > > #1797: FILE: include/linux/spi/tsc210x.h:55: > > +typedef void (*tsc210x_coords_t)(void *context, int x, int y, int z1, int z2); > > > > do not add new typedefs > > #1798: FILE: include/linux/spi/tsc210x.h:56: > > +typedef void (*tsc210x_ports_t)(void *context, int bat[], int aux[]); > > > > do not add new typedefs > > #1799: FILE: include/linux/spi/tsc210x.h:57: > > +typedef void (*tsc210x_temp_t)(void *context, int temp); > > I wonder what is used instead. I think the "no new typedefs" rule gets relaxed for function call prototypes. But to answer your question: it's usually more clear to just put the function prototype into the relevant type declarator than to define a new type. - Dave