On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 09:49:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 09:40:50PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > - struct dw_dma_slave slave = {
> > > - .src_id = 0,
> > > - .dst_id = 0
> > > - };
> > > + struct dw_dma_slave dma_tx = { .dst_id = 1 }, *tx = &dma_tx;
> > > + struct dw_dma_slave dma_rx = { .src_id = 0 }, *rx = &dma_rx;
> > You know my attitude to these changes.) But anyway what's the point in having
> > the *tx and *rx pointers here? Without any harm to the readability you can use
> > the structures names directly, don't you?
> I will wait for Mark to decide.
Like I said before I don't particularly care either way, I've queued the
patch to apply but really I'd rather that the people working on the
driver could come to some sort of agreement here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
