Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 07:53:37AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> >> @@ -1140,6 +1128,36 @@ omap_i2c_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> >> return 0;
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
>> >> +static int omap_i2c_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
>> >> + struct omap_i2c_dev *_dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> >
>> > what happened to dev_get_drvdata(dev) ??
>> >
>>
>> Yes, that would work too since:
>>
>> static inline void *platform_get_drvdata(const struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> return dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
>> }
>>
>> but IMO, readability is better if the driver does platform_set_drvdata()
>> and then the corresponding platform_get_drvdata()
>
> fair enough, but if you already have the dev pointer, what's the gain in
> doing a container_of() just to go back to the dev pointer again ?
There is no gain, but there is no loss either. The compiler is smart
enough that the resulting assembly is the same.
> IMHO, there's really no need for that and just calling dev_get_drvdata()
> straight is enough. All in all, platform_get_[sg]et_drvdata() are just
> wrappers for dev_[sg]et_drvdata(). The whole point, was to avoid
> dev_[sg]et_drvdata(&pdev->dev).
Well, whether or not to use dev_[gs]et_* or platform_[gs]et_* is not
relevant to $SUBJECT patch.
The current driver does platform_set_drvdata(), so I used
platform_get_drvdata() for consistency and readability. If I were to
use dev_get* then I would want the correpsonding set changed to
dev_set_* also for consistency.
If someone wants to change both the sets and gets to the dev_ versions,
that's fine with me, but it should be separate patch.
Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
