On 12/12/2011 02:08 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Gerlando Falauto,
In message<4ee5ca4a.8050...@keymile.com> you wrote:
You could just use 'apply_cb apply' for that param I think.
Absolutely. I introduced the typedef at a later stage and forgot to
update it there too. Good catch, thanks!
Run checkpatch, and mind the CodingStyle section about typedefs!
I did run checkpatch, it didn't say a word about this.
What is your recommendation about typedef'ining a function pointer?
I immediately suspected that using a callback function might sound like
heresy, so if you have any better suggestion please put it forward
before I rework this changeset for the fifth time... please.
I just think having the whole, expanded signature as the type for a
function-pointer parameter or local variable would just make things too
long and redundant.
Just off the top of my head: perhaps a struct with a single function
pointer element might look better than a typedef?
Thanks,
Gerlando Falauto
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
