On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 02:57:15AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 01:39, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 00:36, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:54:40AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> +struct device; > >>> +struct adxl34x; > >>> +typedef int (adxl34x_read_t) (struct device *, unsigned char); > >>> +typedef int (adxl34x_read_block_t) (struct device *, unsigned char, int, unsigned char *); > >>> +typedef int (adxl34x_write_t) (struct device *, unsigned char, unsigned char); > >>> + > >>> +void adxl34x_disable(struct adxl34x *ac); > >>> +void adxl34x_enable(struct adxl34x *ac); > >>> +int adxl34x_probe(struct adxl34x **pac, struct device *dev, u16 bus_type, > >>> + int irq, int fifo_delay_default, adxl34x_read_t read, > >>> + adxl34x_read_block_t read_block, adxl34x_write_t write); > >> > >> Too many arguments... I think creating "struct adxl34x_ops" is called > >> for. > > > > guess i should do the same with the ad714x driver ? > > although looking at it, it'd only combine 4 args into 1 (so there'd be > 5 instead of 8). i'd still have to pass the rest in as they're > instance-specific. guess you still want the change though ? Yes, please. I still think it would be cleaner this way. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
