On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 04:14:57PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 02:20:03PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 03:00:24PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > Let's use the same data type as struct device.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.h | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.h b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.h
> > > index 97eda8cd63df..1280cac314fe 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.h
> > > @@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ struct ucsi_debugfs_entry {
> > > struct ucsi {
> > > u16 version;
> > > struct device *dev;
> > > - struct driver_data *driver_data;
> > > + void *driver_data;
> >
> > Nice, but why?
> >
> > And how was this building? I don't see a "struct driver_data" defined
> > anywhere here.
>
> I had not even thought about that, but that's weird.
>
> I can write anything after "struct" there, and it will just build
> without any warnings or errors. The complier does not seem to even
> check the type in this case, since the member is always assigned a
> void pointer.
Ah, I guess the compiler never actually has to look up what 'struct
driver_data' is if it is never referenced (i.e. you are only casting
void * to it.)
> So this is actually a bug, no?
Kind of? But it works, so let's just leave it alone :)
I'll take this patch as it is "obviously correct" now, but sure looked
odd to start with.
thanks,
greg k-h
