[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdbiLmx6EuL8o1=RgrbMMfagbXHPK2VjrkNons6E=mm8bA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 13:25:58 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpiolib: assign chip owner to dev->driver->owner if
not set
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Grygorii Strashko
> <grygorii.strashko@...com> wrote:
>
>> Assign GPIO chip owner field to chip->dev->driver->owner if it was not
>> configured by GPIO driver.
>>
>> Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
>
> Patch applied with Alex' review tag.
>
>> There is also one positive additional side effect:
>> lines like below can be removed from a lot of GPIO
>> drivers
>> rdc321x_gpio_dev->chip.owner = THIS_MODULE;
>
> Yes let's do this :)
Or actually, I have had some second thought to why gpio_chip
is duplicating struct members from struct device at all.
Why should it even have "owner" and "of_node"?
Should we not just rewrite this code to follow the struct device *dev
pointer in gpio_chip and use "owner" and "of_node" from there?
Yours,
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