On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:31:35PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:27:24AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >
> > > I guess it would be good to have a:
> > >
> > > enum usb_gadget_state usb_gadget_get_state(struct usb_gadget *gadget)
> > > {
> > > return gadget->state;
> > > }
> > >
> > > right ?? At least dwc3 can make use of it.
> >
> > This seems like unnecessary embellishment. What's wrong with typing
> >
> > gadget->state
> >
> > instead of
> >
> > usb_gadget_get_state(gadget)
> >
> > ? Do you have some reason to think the "state" field will need further
> > encapsulation in the future?
>
> not really, just that a setter() usually follows up a getter(). But...
> meh... no strong feelings
I would argue that for something as simple as ->state, you don't even
need a "setter()" function. This is C, not Java :)
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
