[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d173a67b-43f7-c0d6-255b-9ce4a0fb1e00@bmw-carit.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 15:10:04 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
To: Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>, Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
CC: <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<irina.tirdea@...el.com>, <octavian.purdila@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v0 4/8] Input: goodix: use firmware_stat instead of
completion
> Looking at the API, I really don't like the mixing of namespaces.
> Either it's fw_ or it's firmware_ but not a mix of both.
I agree, that was not really clever.
struct fw_loading { ... }
__fw_loading_*()
fw_loading_*()
Would that make more sense? firmware_loading_ as prefix is a bit long IMO.
> Also looks like fw_loading_start() would do nothing as the struct is
> likely zero initialised, and FW_STATUS_LOADING == 0. Maybe you need an
> UNSET enum member?
Good point, I cut a corner here a bit :). In the spirit of making things
more clear fw_loading_start() should be used.
> FW_STATUS_ABORT <- FW_STATUS_ABORTED, to match the adjective suffixes
> of the other members. Ditto fw_loading_abort() which doesn't abort
> firmware loading but sets the status.
Okay.
Thanks a lot for the feedback.
cheers,
daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists