[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <op.vg6gblz87p4s8u@pikus>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:36:47 +0200
From: Michał Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] usb gadget: don't save bind callback in struct
usb_composite_driver
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 03:33:49PM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>> The bind function is most of the time only called at init time so there
>> is no need to save a pointer to it in the composite driver structure.
>>
>> This fixes many section mismatches reported by modpost.
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c
>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c
>> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
>> #define USB_BUFSIZ 1024
>>
>> static struct usb_composite_driver *composite;
>> +static int (*composite_gadget_bind)(struct usb_composite_dev *cdev);
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:20:10 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> This can be __initdata, can't it?
No. g_ffs.c uses usb_composite_probe() not only in init so neither
usb_composite_probe() nor this new variable can be in init section.
> I thought about usb_composite_drivers, too, and wondered if it would be
> sensible to change the additional argument of usb_gadget_probe_driver to
> struct usb_gadget_probe_data *probe_data. Then you could do the
> following
>
> struct usb_composite_probe_data {
> struct usb_gadget_probe_data usb_probe_data;
> int (*composite_gadget_bind)(struct usb_composite_dev *);
> }
>
> and in composite_bind use container_of to get the gadget_bind function.
Yes, this seems sensible, however I'm not sure if it's worth the effort.
Note that the whole gadget API is designed in a way that there can be
only one gadget registered so that passing private data with
usb_gadget_probe_driver() as well as with usb_composite_probe() is not
really crucial and we can manage with global variables.
> Maybe that's overengineered though. As there is already a dependency on
> a global variable (i.e. composite) your patch doesn't make it much
> worse. Just my 0.02€.
Yep, that was my reasoning as well.
I guess we'll have to worry about it when (if) boards with many UDCs
became common. ;)
--
Best regards, _ _
| Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
| Computer Science, Michał "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
+----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists