On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:14:04AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 01.07.2013 09:09, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:48:50AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > >> Hi Dmitry, > >> > >> On 01.07.2013 03:33, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:09:14PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > >>>> + > >>>> + if (!pdata->model) > >>>> + pdata->model = 7846; > >>>> + > >>>> + if (!pdata->vref_delay_usecs) > >>>> + pdata->vref_delay_usecs = 100; > >>>> + > >>>> + if (!pdata->x_plate_ohms) > >>>> + pdata->x_plate_ohms = 400; > >>>> + > >>>> + if (!pdata->pressure_max) > >>>> + pdata->pressure_max = ~0; > >>> > >>> We should not be changing the platform data as the device does not own > >>> it and it may well be declared as a constant structure. > >> > >> We don't change the platform data that is passed in via the driver core. > >> We keep a copy of it in our private strucz (that's what the subject > >> says) and in case of DT, we modify that copy. The passed pdata is left > >> untouched. > >> > > > > That might have been the intent but the patch only stores a _pointer_ to > > the platform data in the main structure, so in non-DT case you end up > > modifying the original structure. > > Eh, ok. I'll change that to always make a copy. Somehow though, I like > the first approach (v1 of the set) better, which stored all data that is > modified inside the private struct directly. > > Anyway, I'll submit v3 later. No, there is no need, the other patch (adding DT bindings) should work just fine without this one. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- 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
