On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:32:26PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote: > > > > >>That should be passed using platform data. > > > > > > > >Ick, don't pass strings around, pass pointers. If you have platform > > > >data you can get to, then put the pointer there, don't use a "name". > > > > > > I don't think I understood you here :-s We wont have phy pointer > > > when we create the device for the controller no?(it'll be done in > > > board file). Probably I'm missing something. > > > > Why will you not have that pointer? You can't rely on the "name" as the > > device id will not match up, so you should be able to rely on the > > pointer being in the structure that the board sets up, right? > > > > Don't use names, especially as ids can, and will, change, that is going > > to cause big problems. Use pointers, this is C, we are supposed to be > > doing that :) > > Kishon, I think what Greg means is this: The name you are using must > be stored somewhere in a data structure constructed by the board file, > right? Or at least, associated with some data structure somehow. > Otherwise the platform code wouldn't know which PHY hardware > corresponded to a particular name. > > Greg's suggestion is that you store the address of that data structure > in the platform data instead of storing the name string. Have the > consumer pass the data structure's address when it calls phy_create, > instead of passing the name. Then you don't have to worry about two > PHYs accidentally ending up with the same name or any other similar > problems. Close, but the issue is that whatever returns from phy_create() should then be used, no need to call any "find" functions, as you can just use the pointer that phy_create() returns. Much like all other class api functions in the kernel work. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
