[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <527009EB.3010704@metafoo.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:18:03 +0100
From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
CC: Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Sagar Dharia <sdharia@...eaurora.org>,
Gilad Avidov <gavidov@...eaurora.org>,
Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>,
"Ivan T. Ivanov" <iivanov@...sol.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/10] spmi: Linux driver framework for SPMI
On 10/29/2013 05:30 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 10/29/13 08:56, Josh Cartwright wrote:
>>
>>>> +#define to_spmi_controller(d) container_of(d, struct spmi_controller, dev)
>>> Should be a inline function for better type safety.
>> Sounds good. Will change the to_spmi_*() macros.
>
> I was under the impression that container_of() already does type
> checking. At least it will ensure that typeof(d) == typeof(dev) in the
> above example which is about as good as it can get.
Well you'll get a warning, but the quality of the warning message is much
better when an inline function is used.
warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
vs.
warning: Passing argument 1 of to_smpi_controller() from incompatible
pointer type. Expected struct device * got struct driver *
- Lars
--
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