On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:51, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:46:20AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:26, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:52:44PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> +typedef int (ad7879_read_t) (void *bus_data, u8 reg);
>> >> +typedef int (ad7879_multi_read_t) (void *bus_data, u8 first_reg, u8 count, u16 *buf);
>> >> +typedef int (ad7879_write_t) (void *bus_data, u8 reg, u16 val);
>> >> +
>> >> +struct ad7879_bus_ops {
>> >> + void *bus_data;
>> >> + int irq;
>> >> + ad7879_read_t *read;
>> >> + ad7879_multi_read_t *multi_read;
>> >> + ad7879_write_t *write;
>> >> +};
>> >> +
>> >> +int ad7879_disable(struct device *dev);
>> >> +int ad7879_enable(struct device *dev);
>> >> +int ad7879_probe(struct device *dev, struct ad7879_bus_ops *bops, u8 devid, u16 bustype);
>> >> +int ad7879_remove(struct device *dev);
>> >
>> > Hmm, I liked when these accepted "struct ad7879" better.
>>
>> i toyed with that a bit, but the generated code was worse because the
>> drvdata helpers are externals
>
> Hm, it would only make overall difference when you have both transports
> loaded, right? Oh well, I don't really have strong preference either
> way.
some of these funcs are used internally too, so there'd still be an
issue with only one bus driver
-mike
--
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
