On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 05:30:01PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > I'm not sure if it's a good idea to define two separate callbacks. It > > > means adding two pointers instead of one (for every instance of the > > > structure, not only those implementing them), doing two calls, running > > > the same checks twice, locking twice, checking the result twice. > > > > > > Also, passing a structure pointer would mean less code changed if we > > > decide to add more related state values later. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > If you don't agree, I have no objections so > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Michal Kubecek <mkube...@suse.cz> > > > > I have no strong opinion on it. Should I rework it? > > It is an internal API, so we can change it any time we want. > > I did wonder if MAX should just be a static value. It seems odd it > would change at run time. But we can re-evaulate this once we got some > more users.
OK, then let's keep it for now. -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
