On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:23:21PM -0400, Dan Malek wrote: > > On May 6, 2005, at 1:08 PM, Eugene Surovegin wrote: > > >Yeah, it's better, I'm only wondering what if some board has separate > >PHY interrupt lines for each FCC? Define name - "PHY_INTERRUPT" was > >chosen quite badly IMHO :). > > One of my feature_calls is: > embed_feature_call(CPM_FTR_FCC1, REQ_FTR_PHY_INT, &irq) > > and so on for every Ethernet port. This presents my current coding > challenge, do I want this to be a varargs function or we just always > have > three parameters, where the last one is ignored if not necessary, a > pointer for an out value, or a pointer to a data structure for more > complex information. Right now I have it coded as always three > parameters.
Yeah, I think 3 parameters approach is OK. IOCTL handlers are made like this and so far they proved to be quite flexible. -- Eugene
