On Wed, 08 Dec 2021, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 08:43:53AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Dec 2021, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 09:03:16AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 09:14:44AM -0800, David E. Box wrote: > > > > > Adds get/set driver data helpers for auxiliary devices. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David E. Box <david.e.box@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Mark Gross <markgross@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > V2 > > > > > - No changes > > > > > > > > > > include/linux/auxiliary_bus.h | 10 ++++++++++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > I would really like to see an explanation why such obfuscation is really > > > > needed. dev_*_drvdata() is a standard way to access driver data. > > > > I wouldn't call it obfuscation, but it does looks like abstraction for > > the sake of abstraction, which I usually push back on. What are the > > technical benefits over using the dev_*() variant? > > See my response at: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/YbBwOb6JvWkT3JWI@xxxxxxxxx > for why it is a good thing to do. I saw this after I'd sent my query. > In short, driver authors should not have to worry about mixing > bus-specific and low-level driver core functions. Okay, that makes sense. I guess my view abstraction for the sake of it is slightly higher level as I vehemently dislike it when driver-set writers create their own APIs, such as; (just off the top of my head, not a real example) cros_get_data() or cros_write() which are usually abstractions of top level APIs like platform_get_data() and regmap_write() respectively. Abstracting at *real* API level does seem like the right thing to do. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
