At Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:09:38 +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:08:51AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
I'd also expect this to be more what the default naming does since we want to try to steer people towards using the simplest and least error prone mechanism for doing this.
If changing the existing API is fine for you (not adding the new one), it's trivial to convert the patches to do so. Looking at the end
Yes, I think that's a better approach. It's fairly obvious that the existing interface isn't awesome so it shouldn't be the default one.
result, all SOC_ENUM_SINGLE() and SOC_ENUM_DOUBLE() usages are covered. For any specific usage in future, we may provide lowlevel macros, __SOC_ENUM_SINGLE() with the number of items, too.
Indeed, I was intending to go through and look at renaming the legacy macros so they're implementaton details once I'd got through all the patches.
OK, but still a question is whether to split patches or not. By splitting patches, we'll break the build in between, so the bisection won't work well. OTOH, a big single patch would be too big. I myself am inclined to have split patches despite bisection breakage in this case.
Takashi