On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, William Breathitt Gray
<vilhelm.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/08/2015 06:53 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> Apart from that this patch seems harmless and the repositioning of
>> some constant declarations is also welcome.
>
> I'll create a separate patch to reposition the constant declarations. Where in
> particular do you believe would be best for them to be positioned?
I was talking about what you did here:
@@ -109,24 +109,23 @@ static int __init idio_16_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
{
struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
struct idio_16_gpio *idio16gpio;
+ const unsigned base = idio_16_base;
+ const unsigned extent = 8;
+ const char *const name = dev_name(dev);
int err;
- const unsigned BASE = idio_16_base;
- const unsigned EXTENT = 8;
- const char *const NAME = dev_name(dev);
So this is already done - sorry for not having been clear.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
