On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:08:42PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:28:01AM +0100, Steffen Trumtrar wrote:
> [...]
> > +void timings_release(struct display_timings *disp)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < disp->num_timings; i++)
> > + kfree(disp->timings[i]);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void display_timings_release(struct display_timings *disp)
> > +{
> > + timings_release(disp);
> > + kfree(disp->timings);
> > +}
>
> I'm not quite sure I understand how these are supposed to be used. The
> only use-case where a struct display_timings is dynamically allocated is
> for the OF helpers. In that case, wouldn't it be more useful to have a
> function that frees the complete structure, including the struct
> display_timings itself? Something like this, which has all of the above
> rolled into one:
>
> void display_timings_free(struct display_timings *disp)
> {
> if (disp->timings) {
> unsigned int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < disp->num_timings; i++)
> kfree(disp->timings[i]);
> }
>
> kfree(disp->timings);
> kfree(disp);
> }
>
Well, you are right. They can be rolled into one function.
The extra function call is useless and as it seems confusing.
Regards,
Steffen
> _______________________________________________
> devicetree-discuss mailing list
> devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
