On Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: [snip] > > If the structures are expected to be generic I somehow feel that a field of > > flags isn't the best way to describe the configuration of CSI-2 or other > > busses. Why not to just use a structure with bus type and an union for > > bus-specific configuration parameters? It'd be easier to access and also to > > change as needed than flags in an unsigned long field. > > Well, yes, a union can be a good idea, thanks. ...on a second thought, we currently only have one field: flags, and it is common for all 3 bus types: parallel, reduced parallel (bt.656, etc.), and CSI-2. In the future, when we need more parameters for any of these busses we'll just add such a union, shouldn't be a problem. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- 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
