Ulrich,
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013, Ulrich Prinz wrote:
> I got the message. With modifying the existing driver to support more
> function pointers in its system struct and assigning them at the
> beginning, and using them on runtime, these quirks are obsolete.
Correct.
> Again, this is the first time I provide code to the kernel officially
No problem. That's what code review is about. First post or not.
> and I learned from others that I should try it by modifying not too much
> code if not needed.
>
> Adding more function pointers to a system relevant structure, doubling
> the number of functions and such didn't look non-invasive to me.
Well, it always depends. If there is a single place to deal with some
oddball hardware, a flag is often the simplest way to go.
If you have to add 10 conditionals in several functions then in a
first step converting the existing implementation into function
pointer calls and then in the next step providing new implementations
for your hardware is most of the time simpler and cleaner.
> But, I totally agree with your argumentation and I even wanted to do it
> in the way you explained in your replies. Just the courage was missing I
> guess :)
Gut feelings are often a better guidance than our self-doubting
intellect. :)
But don't worry. I had to learn it the hard way as well and I still
trip over from time to time.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
