On 03/11/2013 05:58 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 02/05/2013 10:43 AM, Roger Quadros wrote:
>> 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.
>
> In the current version (rogerq/v3.8-usbhost17-dt) of this patch you've
> put both needs_* into the private data struct and the pdata, but it's
> only used inside the probe function.
>
Good catch! Will fix.
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
