>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Mack <zon...@gmail.com> writes:
Hi,
Daniel> +struct musb_hcd_link {
Daniel> + struct musb *musb;
Daniel> +};
Daniel> +
Daniel> +struct musb *hcd_to_musb(struct usb_hcd *hcd)
Daniel> +{
Daniel> + struct musb_hcd_link *link = (struct musb_hcd_link *)
hcd->hcd_priv;
Daniel> + return link->musb;
Daniel> +}
Daniel> +
>>
>> Sorry, I missed this first time around - But why the indirection with
>> musb_hcd_link? Why not simply directly store a pointer to struct musb in
>> hcd_priv?
Daniel> Well, that's also possible. I just thought it's nicer (more readable)
Daniel> that way. But I can as well rework it so the struct isn't needed. It
Daniel> won't safe us any binary size or anything though. So I'm not sure.
Well, it will save one level of indirection (hcd_priv->link->musb vs
hcd_priv->musb).
Daniel> Any particular reason why you don't like the struct? :)
Just that it's an unneeded extra level of indirection.
--
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
--
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
