Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:44:22 +0900 | From | Alex Courbot <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] Runtime Interpreted Power Sequences |
| |
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.
| |