Thread (1 message) 1 message, 1 author, 2015-02-05

[PATCH v5 2/7] mailbox: arm_mhu: add driver for ARM MHU controller

From: Jassi Brar <hidden>
Date: 2015-02-05 14:50:11
Also in: linux-devicetree

On 5 February 2015 at 17:38, Russell King - ARM Linux
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 05:32:39PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
quoted
On Feb 5, 2015 5:13 PM, "Arnd Bergmann" [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
I know typedef's are frowned upon, but how bad is the following option?
       typedef void*  mbox_data_info
       int mbox_send_message(struct mbox_chan *chan, mbox_data_info
data);
quoted
I don't see how that would help.
If it's abuse because the argument is a void*... What if we called it
mbox_data_info?  To say platforms are free to pass data as a pointer or a
value :)
Using a typedef really doesn't change anything.  If you read the kernel
coding style, you'll realise that typedefs are a reason to reject
patches - especially to use them in the way you are proposing.
I started with "I know typedef's are frowned upon". But thanks for reminding me.

Instead of a void*, we could say a client passes data to the
controller via an argument that is sizeof(void *) big, so we
facilitate both usages. Anyways, I get the message that that is not
acceptable.
Try the solution I suggested (which I notice was seemingly totally
ignored.)
My client drivers work in blocking mode, so I don't suffer. For the
platform that passes u32 in async mode, we'll let it manage its own
circular buffer scheme as you suggested.

Thanks.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help