On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Linus Walleij <[email protected]> > wrote: >> GPIO chips have been around for years, but were never real devices, >> instead they were piggy-backing on a parent device (such as a >> platform_device or amba_device) but this was always optional. >> GPIO chips could also exist without any device at all, with its >> struct device *dev pointer being set to null. >> >> When sysfs was in use, a mock device would be created, with the >> optional parent assigned, or just floating orphaned with NULL >> as parent. >> >> For a proper userspace ABI we need gpiochips to *always have a >> populated struct device, so add this in the gpio_chip struct. >> The name "dev" is unfortunately already take so we use "device" >> to name it. >> >> If sysfs is active, it will use this device as parent, and the >> former parent device "dev" will be set as parent of the new >> "device" struct member. > > Why not rename "dev" to "parent" so "dev" becomes what we expect it to > be? The two members being of the same type, keeping it that way seems > error-prone to me.
It's because that is set all over the universe. But I'll cook some separate patch renaming it across the tree I guess... Could use Cocinelle for it maybe. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
