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

On Thursday 05 February 2015 12:08:29 Russell King - ARM Linux 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 

I misunderstood then, I thought you were trying to enforce that
people use a proper pointer.

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.

Agreed, using a typedef here would add an extra problem rather than
solve the one we already have.

Try the solution I suggested (which I notice was seemingly totally
ignored.)

As I understood, Jassi doesn't even have this problem, because his
driver uses a synchronous call rather than an asynchronous one
and he can just pass the data on the stack.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html