On Nov. Tuesday 10 (46) 03:30 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:25:51AM -0500, Vivien Didelot wrote: > > Hi Neil, > > > > On Nov. Tuesday 10 (46) 02:25 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > > To align with the mv88e6xxx code, add a similar header file > > > with all the register defines. > > > The file is based on the mv88e6xxx header for coherency. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstr...@baylibre.com> > > > > In the RFC patchset, Andrew mentioned that there is not that much things in > > common with mv88e6xxx, so I don't really see a value to add a separate > > header > > file. Would that make sense to you guys to add the defines directly in > > mv88e6060.c and squash that in the last patch? > > It is personal taste, but i think there are enough defines that having > a separate header file is useful. For < 10 i would agree with Vivien, > but with ~100, i prefer a header file.
OK. So please fix the copyright owner of this new file then and we're good :-) Thanks, -v -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
