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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
