Shuah Khan wrote: > On 03/18/2016 08:12 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> Hello Shuah, >> >> On 03/18/2016 11:01 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: >>> On 03/18/2016 07:05 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>>> Now that media_device_unregister() also does a cleanup, rename it >>>> to media_device_unregister_cleanup(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> I think adding cleanup is redundant. media_device_unregister() >>> would imply that there has to be some cleanup releasing resources. >>> I wouldn't make this change. >>> >> >> Problem is that there is a media_device_init() and media_device_register(), >> so having both unregister and cleanup in this function will make very clear >> that a single function is the counter part of the previous two operations. >> > > Yes. I realized that this change is motivated by the fact that there is > the media_device_init() and we had the counterpart media_device_cleanup() > as an exported function. I still think there is no need to make the change > to add _cleanup() at the end of media_device_unregister(). It can be handled > in API documentation that it does both. I think that's a bad idea. People will only read the documentation when something doesn't work. In this case it's easy to miss that. -- Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
