On Wednesday 31 January 2018 18:53:19 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:46 PM, <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> > for allocation: ..._alloc_request()
> >> > for filling: _fill_request() / _prepare_request()
> >> >
> >> > or alike.
> >> >
> >> > _set_arguments() not good enough to me.
> >>
> >> Ok. Then we need to stick with 5 arguments... What about name
> >> dell_fill_request()? E.g.
> >>
> >> struct calling_interface_buffer buffer;
> >> dell_fill_request(&buffer, 0x2, 0, 0, 0);
> >> ret = dell_send_request(&buffer, CLASS_INFO, SELECT_RFKILL);
> >>
> >
> > The other alternative is to just define the input of the structure immediately with
> > an initializer, no multi argument filler function. Like this:
>
> Either would work for me, though one comment below.
>
> > - struct calling_interface_buffer buffer;
>
>
> > + struct calling_interface_buffer buffer = {CLASS_INFO,
> > + SELECT_RFKILL,
> > + {0, 0, 0, 0},
> > + {0, 0, 0, 0}};
>
> Looking to this approach I would rather provide a macro then.
>
> #define FILL_REQUEST(a,b,c,d,...) \ // variant FILL_RFKILL_REQUEST(a,b,c,d)
> (struct calling_interface_buffer) { \
> ... \
> }
>
> But then it is macro(s) vs. function(s) debate.
Does not matter, I'm fine with either macro or function.
>
> > - dell_set_arguments(&buffer, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> > - ret = dell_send_request(&buffer, CLASS_INFO, SELECT_RFKILL);
> > + ret = dell_send_request(&buffer);
>
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
