On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:21:23AM +0100, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote: > Is it ok if we rename the regmap_field_init function to > regmap_field_alloc, as it will make it obvious that its allocating > memory which should be freed? > I also thought we could add devm version of it as well.
Yes, that's all sensible. > With this change here is what the init/alloc function would look like: > static void _regmap_field_init(struct regmap_field *field, > struct regmap *regmap, unsigned int reg, > unsigned int lsb, unsigned int msb) > struct regmap_field *devm_regmap_field_alloc(struct device *dev, > struct regmap *regmap, unsigned int reg, > unsigned int lsb, unsigned int msb) I think I'd prefer to see a struct passed in here for the field definition - this would make it easier to initialise from static data, otherwise people will end up writing a loop that reads from a locally defined struct once they get more than a couple of fields. Otherwise this makes sense.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature