[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131204114909.GK29268@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:49:09 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, swarren@...dotorg.org,
thierry.reding@...il.com, dev@...xeye.de, lgirdwood@...il.com,
kai.poggensee@...onic-design.de, sameo@...ux.intel.com,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mfd: tps6586x: add version detection
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:07:28AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2013, Stefan Agner wrote:
> > As I pointed out in the comment above, the struct tps6586x is in the C
> > file, so I would need to move that too. That's why I did not made that
> > change in the end. What do you think, should I still move (and move the
> > struct too?)
> Why would the struct have to be moved if the function is inline?
If the function is in the header and trying to use a struct that's only
defined in the C file then it's not going to build - keeping the struct
in the C file only does seem like a worthwhile thing for encapsulation.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists