At Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:38:07 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 11:44:22AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > Mark Brown wrote: > > > > There was a very strong pushback against the idea of adding a void * > > > to the structure, which is what I'd be looking for. > > > Yes, I was against the void pointer because there is no guarantee > > of the data-type correctness between the data and the user. > > The normal drvdata is fine because the creator and the user are the > > same. But, the proposal of private_driver_data (of the last one, at > > least) is no such a scenario. > > Do you have a pointer to this proposal? I don't remember it and my > google-fu is weak today. I couldn't find it. But IIRC, the original patch was to add "int irq" field to struct snd_ac97. I would accept it because it can do any harm. But, adding a generic "void *driver_data" instead of "int irq" can play a bad game. It can be dangerous when the creator and the user of this pointer are different drivers. That was my argument. thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
