On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:33:29PM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> In portions of the driver which use device-specific data, rename local
> variables from fujitsu_bl and fujitsu_laptop to priv in order to clearly
> distinguish these parts from code that uses module-wide data.
>
> Signed-off-by: Micha?? K??pie?? <ker...@kempniu.pl>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c | 48
> +++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> index 5f6b34a97348..536b601c7067 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> @@ -369,26 +369,26 @@ static const struct key_entry keymap_backlight[] = {
>
> static int acpi_fujitsu_bl_input_setup(struct acpi_device *device)
> {
> - struct fujitsu_bl *fujitsu_bl = acpi_driver_data(device);
> + struct fujitsu_bl *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
[cut]
> static int fujitsu_backlight_register(struct acpi_device *device)
> @@ -566,27 +566,27 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id
> fujitsu_laptop_dmi_table[] = {
>
> static int acpi_fujitsu_laptop_input_setup(struct acpi_device *device)
> {
> - struct fujitsu_laptop *fujitsu_laptop = acpi_driver_data(device);
> + struct fujitsu_laptop *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
> int ret;
Distinguishing between local and global use like this makes sense, but I
feel we should stick with a slightly more descriptive name than "priv".
Without any qualification, "priv" could refer to private device-specific
data from either the fujitsu_bl or fujitsu_laptop drivers. From the source
it is far from obvious which is being accessed in a given function. If we
implemented only a single ACPI device driver then this would be largely a
moot point, but as there are two within the one module the loss of the
description could make it harder to follow the code later on.
Could we use "bl_priv" and "laptop_priv" for example, so as to provide a
clue within the source code as to what exactly is being referenced?
Obviously it doesn't provide any compile time type checking, but it's better
than nothing.
Regards
jonathan
