Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1333064 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-12 20:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-02-12 20:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c: iproc: Add recovery mechanism in error case Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-02-12 20:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c: iproc: Add recovery mechanism in error case Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com> - 2016-02-12 20:40 +0100
| From | Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 20:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c: iproc: Add recovery mechanism in error case |
| Message-ID | <r1rJo-2RI-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
> +static int bcm_iproc_i2c_init(struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c); > +static void bcm_iproc_i2c_enable_disable(struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c, > + bool enable); Can't we move these functions instead of having the extra declarations?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 20:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r1rJp-2RI-49@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1333064 |
On 2/12/2016 11:31 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> +static int bcm_iproc_i2c_init(struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c); >> +static void bcm_iproc_i2c_enable_disable(struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c, >> + bool enable); > > Can't we move these functions instead of having the extra declarations? > I had the same opinion during our internal review, :) I'll do that in the next revision of this patch set. Thanks, Ray
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web