From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp128.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (smtp128.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com [69.147.65.187]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8813FB7E3B for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:01:22 +1100 (EST) From: David Brownell To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpiolib: Introduce chip addition/removal notifier Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:01:05 -0800 References: <20100125180957.GA5380@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <201001252234.30169.david-b@pacbell.net> <20100126172824.GA20319@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> In-Reply-To: <20100126172824.GA20319@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <201001261301.05475.david-b@pacbell.net> Cc: David Brownell , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Bill Gatliff , Andrew Morton List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tuesday 26 January 2010, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > Just > > inline the little two blocking_notifier_call_chain() calls directly, > > making this a *LOT* simpler. > > I'd rather stay with gpio_call_chain() helper, it makes the code > a little bit prettier, IMO. Compare this: The one without the wrapper is IMO more clear, since it doesn't obfuscate anything. Fewer lines of code, too. :) Pretty is a good attribute ... but is a distant third to clarity.