[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023121505-dexterity-rectal-8898@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:40:57 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
Cc: marcel@...tmann.org, johan.hedberg@...il.com, luiz.dentz@...il.com,
wg@...ndegger.com, mkl@...gutronix.de, aspriel@...il.com,
franky.lin@...adcom.com, hante.meuleman@...adcom.com,
kvalo@...nel.org, briannorris@...omium.org, mka@...omium.org,
johan@...nel.org, oneukum@...e.com, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
valentina.manea.m@...il.com, shuah@...nel.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: core: Use device_driver directly in struct
usb_driver and usb_device_driver
On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 02:31:01PM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
> There is usbdrv_wrap in struct usb_driver and usb_device_driver,
> it contains device_driver and for_devices. for_devices is used to
> distinguish between device drivers and interface drivers.
Yes.
> We can compare that if 'drv->probe' is equal to usb_probe_device instead
> of using for_devices in is_usb_device_driver().
Why?
> Remove struct usbdrv_wrap, use device_driver directly in struct usb_driver
> and usb_device_driver. This makes the code more concise.
Really? What does this help out with? Are there future changes that
require this?
I'm all for cleanups, but I don't see what this helps with.
Also, you have a coding style issue in this patch, which means I
couldn't take it anyway:
> +extern int usb_probe_device(struct device *dev);
We don't do that in .c files :(
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists