[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=s9+tDKa69yvG-o9JTjgoAqJtmag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 21:41:30 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/19] mfd: Use mfd cell platform_data for tps6105x cells
platform bits
2011/5/11 Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>:
>> > - struct tps6105x *tps6105x = mfd_get_data(pdev);
>> > + struct tps6105x *tps6105x = pdev->dev.platform_data;
>>
>> Can you use platform_get_drvdata(pdev); instead?
>
> I suppose you mean dev_get_platdata() ?
Yes, sorry.
>> > static int __devexit tps6105x_regulator_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> > {
>> > - struct tps6105x *tps6105x = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> > + struct tps6105x *tps6105x = pdev->dev.platform_data;
>>
>> And this is a NO-OP, actually a bug in the present code, just leave it
>> as it is and the other changes removing the mfd->mfd_data fixes the bug...
>
> I agree it's a bug in the current code. But I need to fetch the platform_data
> pointer, so here again I would have to call dev_get_platdata().
Yes again, you're right.
I was mainly after using the pretty accessor functions rather than direct
dereferencing, no big deal.
Thanks,
Linus Walleij
--
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