[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1486585012.2133.420.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 22:16:52 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Richard Leitner <dev@...l1n.net>,
Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@...data.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, stern@...land.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] usb: misc: add USB251xB/xBi Hi-Speed Hub Controller
Driver
On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 21:03 +0100, Richard Leitner wrote:
> On 02/08/2017 08:20 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 19:45 +0100, Richard Leitner wrote:
> > > On 02/08/2017 05:40 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 16:17 +0100, Richard Leitner wrote:
> > > > > On 02/08/2017 02:59 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > >
> Should I keep my inline {clr,set}_bit_in_byte()
> functions an use BIT() in there, or delete them and use BIT()
> directly
> in usb251xb_get_ofdata() ?
Does it make any sense?
Even just name of your function is longer than what it substitutes.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists