# Re: \[PATCH 2/7\] OMAPDSS: DISPC: Move DISPC specific dss\_reg\_fields to dispc\_features

- From: Tomi Valkeinen \<hidden\>
- Date: 2012-11-30 10:25:35 
- List: linux-fbdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-fbdev/2012/11/13464346
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-omap/2012/11/13464440/t.md

```text
On 2012-11-30 12:02, Chandrabhanu Mahapatra wrote:
> On Thursday 29 November 2012 05:35 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:

>>> diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dss.h b/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dss.h
>>> index 84a7f6a..aa273d8 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dss.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/video/omap2/dss/dss.h
>>> @@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ struct reg_field {
>>>  	u8 low;
>>>  };
>>>  
>>> +struct register_field {
>>> +	u8 start, end;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>
>> We already have the dss_reg_field struct. I think it's better to move
>> that to dss.h, and use it, instead of creating an exact duplicate.
>>
>>  Tomi
>>
>>
> 
> register_field appears to be a more generic a name rather than
> dss_reg_field. Also I was thinking to initialise

Yes, register_field is a more generic name, and that's one reason I
don't suggest using it. There's a possibility of name clash if some
common linux framework would use a similar name. So dss_reg_field refers
to a register field, used by (omap)dss.

It could also be renamed to omapdss_reg_field, but that's a bit longer.
But perhaps naming it omapdss_reg_field would separate it better from
dss_reg_fields.

 Tomi


```

## Attachments

- [signature.asc](https://ratatoskr.run/linux-fbdev/2012/11/13464346/attachment/0) (application/pgp-signature, 899 bytes)