On 21 December 2011 01:38, andrzej zaborowski <balr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since this sub device uses parts of the rest of mpu state, it's > (apparently) not a separate device, can we thus skip this change? I > don't see much value in it and it doesn't simplify code.
If you like; I don't have a very strong feeling about it, I'm mostly just trying to get patches out of my tree, so "drop patch" is as good as "push to master" in that sense :-) I do suspect that nested anonymous structs are going to be a pain for VMState if we ever get to adding save/load support to omap3. > (note the parens in *(s->clkm) are redundant. Also would be great if > your patches could maintain the indentation of the rest of the file > where it's not specified by the new coding style, this would reduce > inconsistency). I mostly try not to make spurious indentation changes, but there are a lot in the patches I inherited from the qemu-meego tree so sometimes things slip through. -- PMM
