On 01/17/2017 04:07 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 01/17/2017 04:00 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 01/17/2017 03:34 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: > >>> But why not to use void *class_name to be consistent with callback and >>> device_find_child()? >> >> The top-level function: device_find_in_class_name() should have a >> stronger typing of its argument even if it internally uses >> device_find_child() and a callback that takes a void * argument, that's >> how I see it. > > Fair enough. > >>> Btw, >>> return get_device(parent); >> >> Not sure I follow what that means here? > > Missed remark. Instead of > > get_device(parent); > return parent; > > you can use > > return get_device(parent);
Seems reasonable, if I have to respin a v5, will add that, thanks! -- Florian