On Wed, 04 Dec 2013, Stefan Agner wrote:
> Am 2013-12-04 11:07, schrieb Lee Jones:
> > On Wed, 04 Dec 2013, Stefan Agner wrote:
> >
> >> Am 2013-12-04 09:10, schrieb Lee Jones:
> >> >> +int tps6586x_get_version(struct device *dev)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + struct tps6586x *tps6586x = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >> >> +
> >> >> + return tps6586x->version;
> >> >> +}
> >> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tps6586x_get_version);
> >> >
> >> > I thought Mark suggested that this routine was converted to a 'static
> >> > inline' and moved into the header? Did you not think this was a good
> >> > idea?
> >> As I pointed out in the comment above, the struct tps6586x is in the C
> >> file, so I would need to move that too. That's why I did not made that
> >> change in the end. What do you think, should I still move (and move the
> >> struct too?)
> >
> > Why would the struct have to be moved if the function is inline?
>
> True, the inline I could have done without moving the struct and the
> function. Would you like me to create another revision doing this?
>
> But moving the function needs moving of the struct tps6586x
> declaration...
>
> [Sorry, this time with answer all]
Do you know what, it's really not that important.
Patch applied.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
