On 10.04.2013 21:15, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>>>>>> "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.
>
Ok, alright. Sent v4 right now.
Thanks for your feedback! Much appreciated. Btw - did you try that on
your board yet? Does it work for you as well?
Daniel
--
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
