ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 22 Jul 2003, ollie lho wrote: > > > Why do you want to call a SINGLE function in different places with > > different enum value ? Is there any disadvantage to make each call > > into it own function ?
I hereby reserve judgment until I see Greg's implementation. I think I am going to complain but I think there is a lot we can work with as well. > The problem is, are the three functions defined sufficient? how many > should there be? What if hardwaremain changes and we add new "passes", do > we have to add some new set of functions? If we add new passes, how do we > go about fixing all the parts that we have written code for? It is trivial to simply add another function to a table of function pointers if you have something appropriate. Experience tells me specific functions will do a better job than a pass argument. But it in the big picture it doesn't much matter. It is which hooks you have that matter. Adding entry points is not a problem. I added the enable function to the device side of things and everything that didn't care just worked. As far as I am concerned the real debate begins when I get back and can sink my teeth into Greg's code. For the rest who haven't looked so closely. Greg and Ron are taking the existing superio model and generalizing it. I have taken the existing pci device model and generalized it. And now we have the design review/fight/slug out as we meet in the middle. I suspect the union of the two sets of functions from struct device_operations and from the superio side is two high. But the way forward is to get that union and have everyone understand the pieces backwards and forwards. Eric _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
