>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Mack <zonque@xxxxxxxxx> writes: Hi, Daniel> +struct musb_hcd_link { Daniel> + struct musb *musb; Daniel> +}; Daniel> + Daniel> +struct musb *hcd_to_musb(struct usb_hcd *hcd) Daniel> +{ Daniel> + struct musb_hcd_link *link = (struct musb_hcd_link *) hcd->hcd_priv; Daniel> + return link->musb; Daniel> +} Daniel> + >> >> Sorry, I missed this first time around - But why the indirection with >> musb_hcd_link? Why not simply directly store a pointer to struct musb in >> hcd_priv? Daniel> Well, that's also possible. I just thought it's nicer (more readable) Daniel> that way. But I can as well rework it so the struct isn't needed. It Daniel> won't safe us any binary size or anything though. So I'm not sure. Well, it will save one level of indirection (hcd_priv->link->musb vs hcd_priv->musb). Daniel> Any particular reason why you don't like the struct? :) Just that it's an unneeded extra level of indirection. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard -- 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