[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180906181918.GA20419@archbook>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 11:19:18 -0700
From: Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>
To: Alan Tull <atull@...nel.org>
Cc: Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer.private@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] fpga: bridge: add devm_fpga_bridge_create
Hi Alan,
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 10:38:53AM -0500, Alan Tull wrote:
> > > - * fpga_bridge_unregister - unregister and free a fpga bridge
> > > - * @bridge: FPGA bridge struct created by fpga_bridge_create
> > > + * fpga_bridge_unregister - unregister a FPGA bridge
> > > + *
> > > + * @bridge: FPGA bridge struct
> > > + *
> > > + * This function is intended for use in a FPGA bridge driver's remove function.
> > > + * If the bridge was created with devm_fpga_bridge_create(), the bridge struct
> > > + * will be automatically freed. If the bridge was created with
> > > + * fpga_bridge_create(), the caller is responsible for freeing the bridge with
> > > + * fpga_bridge_free().
> >
> > I find the formulation somewhat confusing, since it could be
> > interpreted as if you
> > used the devm_() functions you don't have to call unregister().
>
> Yes I'm being too verbose and it's making things muddled. How about
> if I take out the part that starts with "If bridge was created..."?
> That just leaves "This function is intended for use in a FPGA bridge
> driver's remove function."
Sounds good.
Moritz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists