On Thursday, August 06, 2015 10:48:48 AM Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> 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?
I would prefer PROPERTY_ENTRY_ to be honest. It's not like we need to save
characters here.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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
