On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 10:22 -0500, Liberman Igal-B31950 wrote: > Regards, > Igal Liberman > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wood Scott-B07421 > > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:31 PM > > To: Liberman Igal-B31950 <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; linux- > > [email protected]; Bucur Madalin-Cristian-B32716 > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [V5, 2/6] fsl/fman: Add FMan support > > > > On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 11:32 -0500, Liberman Igal-B31950 wrote: > > > > > > > + > > > > > +struct device *fman_get_device(struct fman *fman) { return > > > > > +fman->dev; } > > > > > > > > Is this really necessary? > > > > > > > > > > Fman port needs fman->dev, fman structure is opaque, so yes, it's > > > needed. > > > > Why is opacity being maintained from one part of the fman driver to > > another? > > Isn't this the sort of excessive layering that was complained about? > > > > > > It's not really layering. > Fman Port uses Fman resources, it's not completely standalone.
That's my point -- if it's not standalone, why is "struct fman" opaque to the port code? -Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
