Hi,
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:27:24AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> > I guess it would be good to have a:
> >
> > enum usb_gadget_state usb_gadget_get_state(struct usb_gadget *gadget)
> > {
> > return gadget->state;
> > }
> >
> > right ?? At least dwc3 can make use of it.
>
> This seems like unnecessary embellishment. What's wrong with typing
>
> gadget->state
>
> instead of
>
> usb_gadget_get_state(gadget)
>
> ? Do you have some reason to think the "state" field will need further
> encapsulation in the future?
not really, just that a setter() usually follows up a getter(). But...
meh... no strong feelings
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
