On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 13:27 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:50:46PM -0400, Andy Walls wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 11:26 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I'm generally good with this entire patch, but the union usage looks a > > > bit odd, as the members aren't of the same size, which is generally > > > what I've come to expect looking at other code. > > > > Having a union with different sized members is perfectly valid C code. > > > Yeah, no, I know that it'll work, just that most of the unions I've > actually paid any attention to had members all of the same size. Seemed > like sort of an unwritten rule for in-kernel use. But its probably just > fine. Well if it's an unwritten rule, not everyone is following it. :) There are numerous counter-examples in include/linux/*.h . Here are a few easy to see ones: include/linux/input.h: union in struct ff_effect: ff_rumble vs. ff_periodic include/linux/i2c.h union i2c_smbus_data: byte vs. word vs. block[] include/linux/kfifo.h DECLARE_KFIFO > > > I'd be inclined to > > > simply move duty_cycle out of the union and leave just duration and > > > carrier in it. > > > > That's not necessary and it could be confusing depending on where you > > put duty_cycle. > > There's that. But without having code that actually uses duty_cycle in a > meaningful way yet, its hard to say for sure. If carrier and duty_cycle > were only being sent out in their own events, you might actually want a > union of duration, carrier and duty_cycle. Though I suspect we'll probably > want to pass along carrier and duty_cycle at the same time. I suspect you're right on that. I don't have any experience with hardware that can actually estimate carrier freq or duty cycle. I suspect they can be measured together using edge detection on both rising and falling edges. Regards, Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
