On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 20:46 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > > I think this is a bit dangerous. Above, you defined the structure member > > 'changed_map' which I personally would read as "take care, in this > > structure the fields X, Y and Z changed over what I gave you last time". > > However, the way it's used here is as a 'valid' bitmap, in "In this > > struct, only the fields X, Y and Z are valid". This is a huge difference > > if the driver happens to need multiple things at the same time, with the > > approach you're doing here you'd need to keep track of everything in the > > driver. > > > Yes we can have both valid and change bitmap to lower that burden from > form driver. Oh I just realised that I didn't read this closely enough. If you actually keep this structure around then we don't need a 'valid' bitmap at all because all info will be valid all the time. If possible, I think that would be much preferable, but I haven't really given much thought to how complex it would be to implement. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
