[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VeqLb2hDgj2jfWzQgw4wa31gckSw=jZS0UhUAnZgNA14Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 02:07:24 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Marvell Dove/MV78xx0/Orion SOC support"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 05/10] drivers: base: Add device_find_in_class_name()
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
> On 01/17/2017 04:00 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/17/2017 03:34 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
>> But why not to use void *class_name to be consistent with callback and
>> device_find_child()?
>
> The top-level function: device_find_in_class_name() should have a
> stronger typing of its argument even if it internally uses
> device_find_child() and a callback that takes a void * argument, that's
> how I see it.
Fair enough.
>> Btw,
>> return get_device(parent);
>
> Not sure I follow what that means here?
Missed remark. Instead of
get_device(parent);
return parent;
you can use
return get_device(parent);
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists