Hi Mauro, On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:46:56PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > The V4L2_ASYNC_MATCH_FWNODE match criteria requires just one > struct to be filled (struct fwnode_handle). The V4L2_ASYNC_MATCH_DEVNAME > match criteria requires just a device name. > > So, it doesn't make sense to enclose those into structs, > as the criteria can go directly into the union. > > That makes easier to document it, as we don't need to document > weird senseless structs. The idea is that in the union, there's a struct which is specific to the match_type field. I wouldn't call it senseless. In the two cases there's just a single field in the containing struct. You could remove the struct in that case as you do in this patch, and just use the field. But I think the result is less clean and so I wouldn't make this change. The confusion comes possibly from the fact that the struct is named the same as the field in the struct. These used to be called of and node, but with the fwnode property framework the references to the fwnode are, well, typically similarly called "fwnode". There's no underlying firmware interface with that name, fwnode property API is just an API. -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx -- 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
