On 02/05/2013 11:09 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 10:44:05AM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/usb/nop-usb-xceiv.h b/include/linux/usb/nop-usb-xceiv.h
>>>> index 3265b61..148d351 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/usb/nop-usb-xceiv.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/usb/nop-usb-xceiv.h
>>>> @@ -6,6 +6,10 @@
>>>> struct nop_usb_xceiv_platform_data {
>>>> enum usb_phy_type type;
>>>> unsigned long clk_rate;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* if set fails with -EPROBE_DEFER if can't get regulator */
>>>> + unsigned int needs_vcc:1;
>>>> + unsigned int needs_reset:1;
>>>
>>> how about u8 here?
>>
>> Not sure. Bitfields are usually defined as unsigned int.
>
> IIRC the benefit is that compiler can try to optimize those flags. I
> mean, if you have 32 1-bit flags, compiler will combine those in a
> single u32. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
>
Yes you are right. Kishon was asking me to use u8 instead of unsigned int, which
I don't think is necessary. AFAIK, it is a norm to use unsigned int when defining
a bitfield. Compilers are known to behave funny with bitfields. I don't mind
using bool for each.
cheers,
-roger
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
