Re: [PATCH] gpio: rcar: Improve clock error handling and reporting

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> The new flag is merged with the existing has_both_edge_trigger boolean
>>> into a bitfield to save space.
>>
>> *DON'T* try to save bits in a megabyte kernel like this.
>> The better readability is worth the extra bits or bytes it takes.
>> Besides, did you really try to compile it before/after that change
>> to verify that it actually saved that space?
>
> Is it better readable?

OK sorry for being such an ass, I'm a bit stressed out.

> Size also depends on how many more flags we'll add later.

Yeah. But I really like the bools, I think the static checkers can also
make better use of them, but that's just me.

>> Where is that patch? This does not apply to my tree,
>> probably because of this.
>
> IIRC, you said "include it in your pull request" for that series.

OK so this needs to go in with the pin control stuff? Then it's cool...

>> Please sent the patches in a series.
>
> I can send both to you, as they're not pinctrl but gpio.
>
>>>         unsigned has_both_edge_trigger:1;
>>> +       unsigned needs_clk:1;
>>
>> both should be bool and assigned true/false.
>
> OK, if you prefer it that way.

Thanks!

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html