On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:45:20PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 02:25:48PM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote:
> > On 07/26/2011 02:02 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > >On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:36:00PM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote:
> > >>On 07/26/2011 12:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>+
> > >>>>+ if (drv->remove) {
> > >>>>+ dev_dbg(_dev, "remove\n");
> > >>>>+ status = drv->remove(dev);
> > >>>>+ } else {
> > >>>>+ status = 0;
> > >>>>+ }
> > >>>
> > >>>Again, why would remove ever be NULL?
> > >>>
> > >>>This whole thing isn't needed at all.
> > >>>
> > >>>greg k-h
> > >>Yeah, I see.
> > >>
> > >>But Greg, why does i2c-core do this?
> > >>like:drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c:
> > >
> > >The i2c core has different requirements than the driver core does,
> > >right? They are two totally different things, please don't assume that
> > >the rules for one are the same for the other.
> > >
> > >greg k-h
> > >
> > Hmm...They are totally different things, maybe I see..
>
> Still, it would make sense to clean up platform device's drvdata
> pointer, so that every platform driver out there does not have to do it
> on its own.
Again, it shouldn't need to be "cleaned" up, as no one relies on it
being there.
greg k-h
--
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
