Hello,
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 02:51:55PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> void ata_acpi_unbind(struct ata_device *dev)
> {
> + if (zpodd_dev_enabled(dev))
> + zpodd_deinit(dev);
Maybe zpodd_exit() instead?
> +void zpodd_init(struct ata_device *dev)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + struct zpodd *zpodd;
> +
> + if (dev->private_data)
> + return;
> +
> + if (!device_can_poweroff(dev))
> + return;
> +
> + if ((ret = check_loading_mechanism(dev)) == -ENODEV)
> + return;
> +
> + zpodd = kzalloc(sizeof(struct zpodd), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!zpodd)
> + return;
> +
> + if (ret)
> + zpodd->drawer = true;
> + else
> + zpodd->slot = true;
> +
> + zpodd->dev = dev;
> + dev->private_data = zpodd;
I don't think you're supposed to use dev->private_data from libata
core layer. Just add a new field. Nobody cares about adding 8 more
bytes to struct ata_device and spending 8 more bytes is way better
than muddying the ownership of ->private_data.
> +/* libata-zpodd.c */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SATA_ZPODD
> +void zpodd_init(struct ata_device *dev);
> +void zpodd_deinit(struct ata_device *dev);
> +static inline bool zpodd_dev_enabled(struct ata_device *dev)
> +{
> + if (dev->flags & ATA_DFLAG_DA && dev->private_data)
> + return true;
> + else
> + return false;
> +}
And this gets completely wrong. What if the device supports DA and
low level driver makes use of ->private_data?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
