On Monday, July 29, 2013 10:13:24 PM Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:59:45AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > @@ -439,12 +444,50 @@ static const struct of_device_id
> > > > omap_keypad_dt_match[] = {>
> > > >
> > > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, omap_keypad_dt_match);
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > > > +static int omap4_keypad_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
> > >
> > > you don't need to access the platform_device...
> > >
> > > > + struct omap4_keypad *keypad_data = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > >
> > > ... since this can become:
> > > struct omap4_keypad *keypad_data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >
> > No, please use correct accessors for the objects. Platform drivers deal
> > with platform devices and I prefer using platform_get_drvdata() on them.
>
> The argument to this function is a struct device, you prefer to do some
> pointer math to find the containing pdev, then deref that back to dev,
> then to struct device_private and further to driver_data ?
>
> Sounds like a waste of time IMHO. You already have the device pointer
> anyway, why would you go through the trouble of calculating the
> offsets for the containing struct platform_device ?
This assumes knowledge of dev_get_drvdata() implementation and assumption
that it will stay the same. Unless I hear from device core guys that
<bus>_{get|set}_drvdata() methods are obsolete and will be eventually
removed I will require proper accessors being used.
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
