linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] Input: omap-keypad: Enable wakeup capability for keypad.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130729203605.GB6547@radagast>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2013 23:36:05 +0300
From:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC:	<balbi@...com>, Illia Smyrnov <illia.smyrnov@...com>,
	<linux-input@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] Input: omap-keypad: Enable wakeup capability for
 keypad.

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:59:23PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > @@ -439,12 +444,50 @@ static const struct of_device_id
> > > > > omap_keypad_dt_match[] = {>
> > > > > 
> > > > >  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, omap_keypad_dt_match);
> > > > >  #endif
> > > > > 
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > > > > +static int omap4_keypad_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
> > > > 
> > > > you don't need to access the platform_device...
> > > > 
> > > > > +	struct omap4_keypad *keypad_data = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > 
> > > > ... since this can become:
> > > > 	struct omap4_keypad *keypad_data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > 
> > > No, please use correct accessors for the objects. Platform drivers deal
> > > with platform devices and I prefer using platform_get_drvdata() on them.
> > 
> > The argument to this function is a struct device, you prefer to do some
> > pointer math to find the containing pdev, then deref that back to dev,
> > then to struct device_private and further to driver_data ?
> > 
> > Sounds like a waste of time IMHO. You already have the device pointer
> > anyway, why would you go through the trouble of calculating the
> > offsets for the containing struct platform_device ?
> 
> This assumes knowledge of dev_get_drvdata() implementation and assumption
> that it will stay the same. Unless I hear from device core guys that
> <bus>_{get|set}_drvdata() methods are obsolete and will be eventually
> removed I will require proper accessors being used.

they're not obsolete and will never be removed. They're nothing but
helpers though. Instead of calling:

	dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev);

you call:

	platform_set_drvdata(pdev);

same is valid for every single bus, but in the end they all just wrap a
call dev_{set,get}_drvdata() internally. If you already have a struct
device pointer as argument, why waste cycles doing pointer math just to
go back to the same struct device pointer on the next call ?

-- 
balbi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)