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