Hi Jon,
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 00:28:15, Hunter, Jon wrote:
> On 06/11/2012 09:26 AM, Afzal Mohammed wrote:
> > +enum {
> > + has_none,
> > + has_period,
> > + has_clock
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct gpmc_time_ctrl {
> > + int type;
> > + struct gpmc_timings timings;
> > + struct gpmc_misc_timings bool_timings;
> > +};
>
> Why not combine misc_timings and the original timings? I don't see why
> these need to be kept separate. Even if combined it can still be
To keep similar things together, as misc_timings are all bool type, while
existing are not so. This could have been put inside gpmc_timings, but
wanted to reduce chance of issues for users of old interface.
> backward compatible for legacy boards as they will not specify the misc
> timing fields. I am also not convinced we need this type member.
Reason: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg69041.html
Regards
Afzal
--
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
