Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] Runtime Interpreted Power Sequences

[Alex Courbot]

On 11/16/2012 04:26 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > +#include "power_seq_delay.c"
> > +#include "power_seq_regulator.c"
> > +#include "power_seq_pwm.c"
> > +#include "power_seq_gpio.c"
>
> This is odd, although I remember you already explained why you have to
> include the .c files, instead of linking them separately. But I forgot the
> reason. :) I think this deserves a comment in the code.

This is because of the table right after these includes:

static const struct power_seq_res_ops power_seq_ops[POWER_SEQ_NUM_TYPES] = {
	[POWER_SEQ_DELAY] = POWER_SEQ_DELAY_TYPE,
	[POWER_SEQ_REGULATOR] = POWER_SEQ_REGULATOR_TYPE,
	[POWER_SEQ_PWM] = POWER_SEQ_PWM_TYPE,
	[POWER_SEQ_GPIO] = POWER_SEQ_GPIO_TYPE,
};

The POWER_SEQ_*_TYPE macros are defined in the C files. It's the 
simplest way to initialize this table, and the code inside these C files 
is short and simple enough that I thought I would be forgiven. :)

At first everything was in power_seq.c and it was fine, then I thought 
it would be better to move resource support code into their own filesm 
and now everybody is asking. :P

But yeah, maybe it would be even better to not stop halfway and use 
dynamic linking.

Comment added for the time being. ;)

> > +static int of_power_seq_parse_step(struct device *dev,
> > +				   struct device_node *node,
> > +				   struct power_seq *seq,
> > +				   unsigned int step_nbr,
> > +				   struct list_head *resources)
> > +{
> > +	struct power_seq_step *step = &seq->steps[step_nbr];
> > +	struct power_seq_resource res, *res2;
> > +	const char *type;
> > +	int i, err;
>
> nit: one variable declaration per line.

Fair enough - but is that a convention? checkpatch.pl was happy with these.

Thanks,
Alex.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/