On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 03:47:33PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> 2014-02-13 15:24 GMT+08:00 Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 02:40:23PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >> From: Xianglong Du <Xianglong.Du@xxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> In resume entry, use dev_get_drvdata() instead of to_platform_device(dev) +
> >> platform_get_drvdata(pdev).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Xianglong Du <Xianglong.Du@xxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@xxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/input/misc/sirfsoc-onkey.c | 3 +--
> >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/sirfsoc-onkey.c b/drivers/input/misc/sirfsoc-onkey.c
> >> index 097c10a..8e45bf11 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/input/misc/sirfsoc-onkey.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/sirfsoc-onkey.c
> >> @@ -157,8 +157,7 @@ static int sirfsoc_pwrc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> >> static int sirfsoc_pwrc_resume(struct device *dev)
> >> {
> >> - struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
> >> - struct sirfsoc_pwrc_drvdata *pwrcdrv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >> + struct sirfsoc_pwrc_drvdata *pwrcdrv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >
> > I believe we should use accessors matching the object type. Currently
> > dev_get_drvdata and platform_get_drvdata return the same object, but
> > they do not have to.
> >
> > IOW I prefer the original code.
>
> i did see many commits in kernel which did same jobs with this one. e.g:
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=a1216394e620d0dfbb03c712ae3210e7b77c9e11
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=bab8b563ef08455440badca7fe79b2c700bd1b75
> ...
>
> in my understand, the changed context is a general pm_ops to general
> "driver" and not a legacy suspend/resume in "platform_driver" bound
> with pdev, so in the context, we are caring about "device" more than
> "pdev".
It is more about who owns the data - generic device or platform device?
>
> how do you think if i do a more change in probe() with this by:
>
> - platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pwrcdrv);
> + dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev, pwrcdrv);
>
> would this make everything look fine?
Yes, it would, since we would now know that it is generic driver layer
that has ownership of this data item.
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
