Re: [RFC] pwm: chip_data vs device_data

[Olliver Schinagl]

Hey Thierry,

thans for your quick reply :)

On 06-10-15 09:38, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:20:53AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> > Hey Thierry, list,
> >
> > While working on something in the pwm framework, I noticed that the void
> > *data in the pwm_device struct is called chip_data. Why is it not called
> > device_data, since it is the data associated with a PWM device, rather then
> > the chip, and on that note, if it really is chip related data (thus covering
> > the whole chip, not just the single pwm device) why is there no chip_data in
> > pwm_chip?
> The reason for the name is that it's chip-specific data associated with
> a struct pwm_device. That is, a PWM chip implementation (i.e. driver)
> can use it to keep per-PWM data that's not in struct pwm_device itself.
Then I have to wrap my head around what is a chip and what is a device :)

To me, it seems that a chip can hold X number of pwm devices, and each 
pwm_device has a unique set of properties, duty, plarity, period. So it 
seems that some device specific data could go here as well, where i'm 
bad at examples now
> > Again, is this something worth my time to add a device_data and rename
> > chip_data?
> device_data would be redundant because it's already part of struct
> pwm_device. Plain data might be okay, but I like the chip_ prefix
> because it marks the data as being chip-specific data rather than
> generic.
well here i'd imagine the chip specific data (not allready in the struct).

I'll be subimtting my RFC work later this week after a little bit more 
work and will bring this up again :)

Olliver
> Thierry

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/