[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YbBwSV2IwDHNUrFH@google.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 08:43:53 +0000
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
"David E. Box" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>, hdegoede@...hat.com,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com, shuah@...nel.org,
mgross@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [V2 2/6] driver core: auxiliary bus: Add driver data helpers
On Wed, 08 Dec 2021, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 09:03:16AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 09:14:44AM -0800, David E. Box wrote:
> > > Adds get/set driver data helpers for auxiliary devices.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David E. Box <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> > > V2
> > > - No changes
> > >
> > > include/linux/auxiliary_bus.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > I would really like to see an explanation why such obfuscation is really
> > needed. dev_*_drvdata() is a standard way to access driver data.
I wouldn't call it obfuscation, but it does looks like abstraction for
the sake of abstraction, which I usually push back on. What are the
technical benefits over using the dev_*() variant?
> Lots of busses have this helper. This is nothing new at all, and is
> nice to have. Look at all of the calls to dev_get_drvdata() in
> include/linux/ for the examples.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists