On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 05:00:58PM +0200, ext Paul Mundt wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 05:27:32PM +0300, Ville Syrj?l? wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:21:48AM +0200, Valkeinen Tomi (Nokia-D/Helsinki) wrote: > > > I think a simple solution would be to just use defines, and have > > > functions that take the command as u8. That's what the OMAP DSI driver > > > does. If you have better ideas, please share =). > > > > I find enums easier on the eye than defines. Less irrelevant junk on > > each line. There's no reason you can't pass enum values as u8. But in > > that case giving the enum a name doesn't really make sense. > > > enums are cleaner for these cases, but you also have the case where the > enum type itself is variable size depending on the ABI being used. If > the type in question isn't being packed in to a user-visible data > structure then this will never matter, but it does help to be a bit > careful here regardless. Many people were bitten by this in the ARM > OABI -> EABI conversion, while other architectures generally managed to > get it right from the onset. Yeah using the enum type in ABI is a bad idea since actual type is implementation defined. But if you don't give the enum an identifier there's no way to even accidentally use it as a type. -- Ville Syrjälä -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
