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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 10:21:34 +0200 From: Olliver Schinagl <oliver+list@...inagl.nl> To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com> 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 Hey Thierry, thans for your quick reply :) On 06-10-15 09:38, Thierry Reding wrote: > 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. Then I have to wrap my head around what is a chip and what is a device :) To me, it seems that a chip can hold X number of pwm devices, and each pwm_device has a unique set of properties, duty, plarity, period. So it seems that some device specific data could go here as well, where i'm bad at examples now > >> 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. well here i'd imagine the chip specific data (not allready in the struct). I'll be subimtting my RFC work later this week after a little bit more work and will bring this up again :) Olliver > > Thierry -- 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