On Tuesday 12 June 2012 04:08:05 Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:16:25PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 02:11:17PM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
> > >> --- a/drivers/usb/musb/blackfin.h
> > >> +++ b/drivers/usb/musb/blackfin.h
> > >> @@ -84,4 +84,10 @@ static void dump_fifo_data(u8 *buf, u16 len)
> > >>
> > >> static struct timer_list musb_conn_timer;
> > >>
> > >> +#ifndef CONFIG_BF60x
> > >> +#define vrsel_set_value(val) gpio_set_value(musb->config->gpio_vrsel,
> > >> val) +#else
> > >> +#define vrsel_set_value(val) do { } while (0)
> > >> +#endif
> > >
> > > this obfuscation is unnacceptable and it won't even work if you want to
> > > have support for both blackfins on the same kernel.
> >
> > there are no plans to do that, and a lot more fundamental stuff would
> > have to be sorted out before that could even be considered
>
> Still not taking it. It's just not right. Use a flag at least and don't
> hide common frameworks under a macro.
doesn't that add pointless runtime bloat for checking a flag that's always
set/cleared for the targets ? for the structure in question, there is no gpio
field for BF60x, so it has to be protected by an ifdef else we get a compile
error.
-mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
