Dear Mateusz Zalega,
On 09/06/13 13:40, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> Moreover, the 'int index' should likely be unsigned int and the >> special value to init all controllers at once should probably then >> be 0xffffffff > > Despite our greatest ambitions, I don't think we're likely to use > more than 2^31-1 USB controllers at a time. Besides, negative > values look better both in code and debugger session.
Thinking of it further, instead of using negative value here, like I mentioned above, why not make the "board_usb_init_type" into a field of flags , then add flag to init all controllers at once ?
That's unnecessary. It wouldn't lead to any practical advantage over existing interface.
The advantage would be you won't be mixing two things (value AND value with special meaning) into the "index" parameter.
Alright, provide a use-case. The only 'special' value we have now doesn't interfere with controller index. Why write code or interfaces that won't ever be used?
Look, abusing the index field with a special value is moronic, especially if you
I wouldn't call a de-facto standard abusive or moronic. On the other hand, contributing to unnecessary code bloat would be.
_do_ have another field that can very well be turned into a block of flags
Have you provided another use-case for that, as I asked?
instead of enum right next to it.
function(int foo , enum bar)
| ^ `---------' flags go hereThen int foo can be turned into unsigned int foo _and_ be used for it's one singular purpose. Likewise, enum bar will now be "unsigned int flags" . Do you see the separation now ?
Read your mail carefully - at this point I don't have any problems understanding what you wish to do, but I see your API changes as unjustified. Can you justify them without appealing to your authority and maybe inserting a couple of ad-hominems here and there?
I suppose this thread can be concluded by droping the INIT_ALL stuff entirely. Afterall, we do not want to init _ALL_ ports at once, but we want to init them selectively.
Best regards, Marek Vasut