On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Linus Walleij <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The new flag is merged with the existing has_both_edge_trigger boolean >>> into a bitfield to save space. >> >> *DON'T* try to save bits in a megabyte kernel like this. >> The better readability is worth the extra bits or bytes it takes. >> Besides, did you really try to compile it before/after that change >> to verify that it actually saved that space? > > Is it better readable? OK sorry for being such an ass, I'm a bit stressed out. > Size also depends on how many more flags we'll add later. Yeah. But I really like the bools, I think the static checkers can also make better use of them, but that's just me. >> Where is that patch? This does not apply to my tree, >> probably because of this. > > IIRC, you said "include it in your pull request" for that series. OK so this needs to go in with the pin control stuff? Then it's cool... >> Please sent the patches in a series. > > I can send both to you, as they're not pinctrl but gpio. > >>> unsigned has_both_edge_trigger:1; >>> + unsigned needs_clk:1; >> >> both should be bool and assigned true/false. > > OK, if you prefer it that way. Thanks! Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
