linux-kernel - [RFC] pwm: chip_data vs device

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56137655.40804@schinagl.nl>
Date:	Tue, 06 Oct 2015 09:20:53 +0200
From:	Olliver Schinagl <oliver+list@...inagl.nl>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Olliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
Subject: [RFC] pwm: chip_data vs device_data

Hey Thierry, list,

While working on something in the pwm framework, I noticed that the void 
*data in the pwm_device struct is called chip_data. Why is it not called 
device_data, since it is the data associated with a PWM device, rather 
then the chip, and on that note, if it really is chip related data (thus 
covering the whole chip, not just the single pwm device) why is there no 
chip_data in pwm_chip?

Again, is this something worth my time to add a device_data and rename 
chip_data?

Olliver
--
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/