[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151110143050.GA23891@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:30:50 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] net: dsa: mv88e6060: add register defines header file
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:25:51AM -0500, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> On Nov. Tuesday 10 (46) 02:25 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > To align with the mv88e6xxx code, add a similar header file
> > with all the register defines.
> > The file is based on the mv88e6xxx header for coherency.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
>
> In the RFC patchset, Andrew mentioned that there is not that much things in
> common with mv88e6xxx, so I don't really see a value to add a separate header
> file. Would that make sense to you guys to add the defines directly in
> mv88e6060.c and squash that in the last patch?
It is personal taste, but i think there are enough defines that having
a separate header file is useful. For < 10 i would agree with Vivien,
but with ~100, i prefer a header file.
Andrew
--
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