[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202755915.brE74x99uQ@wuerfel>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 19:57:28 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
srinivas.kandagatla@...il.com, maxime.coquelin@...com,
patrice.chotard@...com, lee.jones@...aro.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v5 1/5] usb: host: ehci-st: Add EHCI support for ST STB devices
On Friday 05 September 2014 18:23:45 Peter Griffin wrote:
> +struct st_platform_priv {
> + struct clk *clks[USB_MAX_CLKS];
> + struct clk *clk48;
> + struct reset_control *rst;
> + struct reset_control *pwr;
> + struct phy *phy;
> +};
Any reason why this is in a shared header file? It looks like
duplicating the structure under two different names would
actually be shorter and keep the drivers more readable as they'd
be self-contained, even when they have the exact same structure.
Do both drivers use all fields?
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists