linux-kernel - Re: [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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20151006073856.GB18633@ulmo>
Date:	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:38:56 +0200
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:	Olliver Schinagl <oliver+list@...inagl.nl>
Cc:	linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Olliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC] pwm: chip_data vs device_data

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:20:53AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> 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?

The reason for the name is that it's chip-specific data associated with
a struct pwm_device. That is, a PWM chip implementation (i.e. driver)
can use it to keep per-PWM data that's not in struct pwm_device itself.

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

device_data would be redundant because it's already part of struct
pwm_device. Plain data might be okay, but I like the chip_ prefix
because it marks the data as being chip-specific data rather than
generic.

Thierry

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)