Hi Guennadi, Thanks for getting to this review so quickly! I agree with all of your comments. I'm sending out v2 of both patches now. On Sun, Sep 09 2012, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >> The zero-length array trick might be becoming unmaintainable as we add >> more labels to the struct like this. Do you think we should keep it >> as-is, or change to individual allocations? Thanks! > > Yeah, it's becoming a bit messy... But I also don't find dynamically > allocating multiple tiny memory areas with the same life-cycle > particularly elegant... Are you expecting many more GPIOs to be added > here? No, I don't expect needing to add more -- I just found myself wondering if there was a better way and thought I'd mention it. Performing multiple allocations is unattractive too, I agree. > What we could do, though, we could add macros for various pin function > names, their lengths, offsets and the total length, to make the > calculations look less cryptic. Would that be a good alternative? Adding the comments is probably fine for now; I'd be okay with waiting to see if we need more GPIO types and revisiting a better solution then. Thanks! - Chris. -- Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://printf.net/> One Laptop Per Child -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
