On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:02:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 16:39 +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > Marcos for easier creation of build-in property entries.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/property.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/property.h b/include/linux/property.h
> > index 76ebde9..204d899 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/property.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/property.h
> > @@ -152,6 +152,41 @@ struct property_entry {
> > } value;
> > };
> >
> > +#define PROP_ENTRY_U8(_name_, _val_) { \
>
> PROP_ prefix is too generic.
> Maybe DEVPROP_ ? At least for the latter no records in the current
> sources.
I disagree with that. IMO this kind of macros should ideally resemble
the structure name they are used to fill (struct property_entry in
this case). And there are already definitions for DEV_PROP_* to
describe the types, so using something like DEVPROP_* here is just
confusing.
If PROP_ENTRY_* is really not good enough, we can change them
PROPERTY_ENTRY_*. But is PROP_ENTRY_* really so bad?
Rafael, what is your opinion?
Thanks,
--
heikki
--
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
