Don't you think it'll be confused to have different APIs between EDAC_MC andI don't think edac_mc_handle_error() with 11 function arguments is a
EDAC_DEVICE?
(in MC the count passed as part of edac_mc_handle_error())
good reference for somethin we want to adopt. For the majority of
drivers you just introduce another useless argument with the following
pattern:
edac_device_handle_ce(edac_dev, 1, 0, 0, edac_dev_name);
IMO, the api should be improved when touching it.
-Robert