On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 17:54 +0530, Archit Taneja wrote: > On Friday 31 August 2012 05:33 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > I don't think there's need for this indirection. We should use function > > pointers only when the func pointer may lead to different functions. > > Here we'll always have just one function, dss_output_set_device. We can > > as well call the function directly. > > Okay. I understand that. But in general, don't func pointers prevent us > from exporting more symbols? Yes. But I'm not sure if there's any real downside to exporting, as long as the names are prefixed properly so that there are no name clashes. > > I know we have similar func pointers for ovls/mgrs currently, but I > > don't think they are good either. They are a relic from the time we > > supported "virtual" overlays and managers, and thus could have different > > implementations for the operations. > > Oh okay, I guess you mean the L4/sDMA updates for DSI command mode. Yep. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
