| Message ID | 1402954800-28215-4-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 16 June 2014 14:39, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > From: Bill Richardson <wfrichar@chromium.org> > > The lower-level driver may want to provide its own buffers. If so, > there's no need to allocate new ones. This already happens to work > just fine (since we check for size of 0 and use devm allocation), but > it's good to document it. > > [dianders: Resolved conflicts; documented that no code changes needed > on mainline] > > Signed-off-by: Bill Richardson <wfrichar@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Doug Anderson wrote: > From: Bill Richardson <wfrichar@chromium.org> > > The lower-level driver may want to provide its own buffers. If so, > there's no need to allocate new ones. This already happens to work > just fine (since we check for size of 0 and use devm allocation), but > it's good to document it. > > [dianders: Resolved conflicts; documented that no code changes needed > on mainline] > > Signed-off-by: Bill Richardson <wfrichar@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > --- > include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h > index 7e9fe6e..2ee3190 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h > @@ -68,8 +68,8 @@ struct cros_ec_msg { > * We use this alignment to keep ARM and x86 happy. Probably word > * alignment would be OK, there might be a small performance advantage > * to using dword. > - * @din_size: size of din buffer > - * @dout_size: size of dout buffer > + * @din_size: size of din buffer to allocate (zero to use static din) > + * @dout_size: size of dout buffer to allocate (zero to use static dout) Why don't these use your new format i.e. doutsize, etc? > * @command_send: send a command > * @command_recv: receive a command > * @ec_name: name of EC device (e.g. 'chromeos-ec')
Lee, On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Doug Anderson wrote: > >> From: Bill Richardson <wfrichar@chromium.org> >> >> The lower-level driver may want to provide its own buffers. If so, >> there's no need to allocate new ones. This already happens to work >> just fine (since we check for size of 0 and use devm allocation), but >> it's good to document it. >> >> [dianders: Resolved conflicts; documented that no code changes needed >> on mainline] >> >> Signed-off-by: Bill Richardson <wfrichar@chromium.org> >> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> >> --- >> include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h >> index 7e9fe6e..2ee3190 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h >> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h >> @@ -68,8 +68,8 @@ struct cros_ec_msg { >> * We use this alignment to keep ARM and x86 happy. Probably word >> * alignment would be OK, there might be a small performance advantage >> * to using dword. >> - * @din_size: size of din buffer >> - * @dout_size: size of dout buffer >> + * @din_size: size of din buffer to allocate (zero to use static din) >> + * @dout_size: size of dout buffer to allocate (zero to use static dout) > > Why don't these use your new format i.e. doutsize, etc? Ah, you mean like the new "struct cros_ec_command" that's switched to in (mfd: cros_ec: Use struct cros_ec_command to communicate with the EC)? I don't know--it seems rather arbitrary. Personally I like having the underscore (thus if we have to change I'd advocate changing "struct cros_ec_command"). The inconsistency doesn't bother me terribly and it will be more work to cherry-pick future patches. Since it didn't sound like you are insisting then I won't change this, but if you say that you want me to change it I'm more than happy to. -Doug -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h index 7e9fe6e..2ee3190 100644 --- a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h +++ b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h @@ -68,8 +68,8 @@ struct cros_ec_msg { * We use this alignment to keep ARM and x86 happy. Probably word * alignment would be OK, there might be a small performance advantage * to using dword. - * @din_size: size of din buffer - * @dout_size: size of dout buffer + * @din_size: size of din buffer to allocate (zero to use static din) + * @dout_size: size of dout buffer to allocate (zero to use static dout) * @command_send: send a command * @command_recv: receive a command * @ec_name: name of EC device (e.g. 'chromeos-ec')