On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 22:53:39 -0800
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 10:39:59PM -0800, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 22:05:21 -0800
> > Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 08:15:22PM -0800, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > > static int __devinit twl4030_vibra_probe(struct platform_device
> > > > *pdev) {
> > > > - struct twl4030_codec_vibra_data *pdata =
> > > > pdev->dev.platform_data;
> > > > + struct twl4030_codec_vibra_data *pdata =
> > > > platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > >
> > > No, device's drvdata belongs to _this_ driver, and it is supposed
> > > to manage it and use as it sees fit.
> >
> > Right, so it's used to pass data to the probe function; once the
> > probe function has obtained the pdata pointer, it's free to do with
> > it what it will.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Note platform_set_drvdata(pdev, info) later in this function along
> > > with platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL) in twl4030_vibra_remove(),
> > > which means that with your change you will be able to bind the
> > > device only once.
> > >
> >
> > Hm, good point; if the driver is reloaded, the pdev that was
> > created by mfd-core will have lost the pointer to pdata.
> >
> > I wonder if I should be using mfd's driver_data instead. I used
> > platform_data because a bunch of drivers had already made use of it
> > to pass cell information..
>
> Then they are doing it incorrectly. One possible way is to have parent
> device carry relevant data in its drvdata and have children get it
> from there.
>
I believe some drivers are even using the parent device already. See
drivers/leds/leds-mc13783.c, for example, whose parent device drvdata
is used to pass around a struct mc13783 to its children. Sounds
like a possibility, will need to look into it further.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
