On Wednesday 27 April 2011, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > In conclusion max1363 gets bigger in all ways if we break this > stuff out. That is just down to the large number of devices supported. > lis3l02dq which supports only one part gets smaller. > > So not a clear descision either way as far as I am concerned, but > putting the channel_spec into this structure is pretty costly for > typical multipart drivers. > > So the upshot of this RFC to my mind is: Is the clarity gained > a good idea? > > What do people think? I suggested this initially, so it shouldn't surprise that I like the patch. For the increase in size, that seems to be purely because of the change in one data structure from bool to pointer, right? If you reorder the members of max1363_chip_info to remove the padding, I think you can make up for that. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
