[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcUsZ3Y1H1UnVx5WkrsP+-CFZKXk_4sVtb0rXvzUR_OZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:18:16 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>,
Yehezkel Bernat <yehezkel.bernat@...el.com>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
Amir Levy <amir.jer.levy@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Mario Limonciello <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com>,
Jared.Dominguez@...l.com,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/24] thunderbolt: Rework capability handling
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 07:38:29PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Mika Westerberg
>> <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> One nit here.
>> Both has quite similar bodies.
>> Wouldn't be nice to split out a helper which takes initial offset and
>> type as parameters?
>
> The whole point of this rework was to separate port vs. switch
> capability to follow how the hardware is organized instead of having one
> more complex function handling everything :)
>
> Sure, I can merge them back together but IMHO it will be not that
> readable anymore.
Up to you. I'm fine with either.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists