[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vc5OCrKUF+c6LkqN_QtQox7P0bUb8nZEQeO5mzhc=860w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 19:15:33 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
Cc: Mario Limonciello <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: dell-laptop: Allocate buffer on heap rather
than globally
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2018 18:53:19 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:46 PM, <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com> wrote:
>> >> Ok. Then we need to stick with 5 arguments... What about name
>> >> dell_fill_request()? E.g.
>> > + struct calling_interface_buffer buffer = {CLASS_INFO,
>> > + SELECT_RFKILL,
>> > + {0, 0, 0, 0},
>> > + {0, 0, 0, 0}};
>>
>> Looking to this approach I would rather provide a macro then.
>>
>> #define FILL_REQUEST(a,b,c,d,...) \ // variant FILL_RFKILL_REQUEST(a,b,c,d)
>> (struct calling_interface_buffer) { \
>> ... \
>> }
>>
>> But then it is macro(s) vs. function(s) debate.
>
> Does not matter, I'm fine with either macro or function.
Mario, it's now up to you. Choose one of the option and send new version.
Thanks!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists