On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/05/16 11:56, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> One thing that I discovered via a recent input device review is that >> the equivalent of our devm_iio_device_alloc there also sets the >> dev.parent. >> >> Should we do the same in IIO? >> >> I'm a bit in too minds as it feels like it is only sort of 'part of the >> allocation'. >> >> Still it drops one line from nearly every IIO driver. >> Could do the same for dev_iio_trigger_alloc as well I guess for double >> savings. >> >> Anyhow, a little cleanup that seemed like a moderately good idea to >> me so I thought I'd see what the general view was. >> >> Jonathan > > I'm gong ahead with this - just for reference purposes the oddities so far > are: > stx104 which never set the parent. > max30100 which never sets the parent. > apds9960 which never sets the parent. > ms5611_i2c never sets the parent. > pulsed_light lidar never sets the parent. Yike! I caused 3 odd drivers here :) > > lm3533 which sets the iio device parent to the mfd device parent, but allocates > on the devm against the mfd. I'm not certain this is how it should have been done > but now it is abi so we have to cope with it. > We can handle this just fine by letting it override the default. > > Each patch is simple enough I'll probably just do this in one or two mega patches > rather than one per driver... > > Same trick applies for the devm_iio_trigger_alloc though that is used rather less. > > Jonathan >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
