Hi,

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:35:41PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh wrote:

On 27 June 2011 14:05, Felipe Balbi [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+static struct regulator_consumer_supply sdp4430_vusb_supply =
+ ? ? ? REGULATOR_SUPPLY("hsusb0", "ehci-omap.0");

this should be an array.

Ok, I can make it an array of _one_ element.
Though I am not sure why is that a good thing, or are we to use another
possible VUSB supply on Panda/SDP boards ? ?Please suggest so that
I can add that too.

same comment I gave before to another patch:

it makes the diff a lot easier to understand should anyone modify this
later. It's also a matter of consistency.

A quick grep showed otherwise though ...

In arch/arm/mach-omap2/
Total regulators defined                          =  71
Regulators with exactly 1 supply           =   58
Single element non-array definitions     =  46/58
Single element array definitions             =  12/58

Even if we consider 20% to be norm for consistency, I am not sure it's
a good one.

the patch which converted all non-array, to array seems to have been
taken yet, then.

Still many samsung guys piously enclose magic value defines in parenthesis,
just to maintain 'consistency' !

that's just plain stupidity.

And, I don't understand how does diff become any easier beyond 2
elements in the array.

http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130738044715490&w=2

Sorry for being bitchy, but I am unable to buy any reason other than
having more than
one element to use array.

I also seem to recall someone (either Russell or Linus) once explained
why we should never mistake one-element arrays with pointers.
Unfortunately, I fail to find the thread, it's quite old.

-- 
balbi
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20110627/d9d4a361/attachment.sig>