Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:59:53 +0100 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] device.h: add device_set_platdata routine |
| |
[added gregkh and lkml to Cc:]
Hi Viresh,
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 10:03:20AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > device.h supports device_get_platdata but doesn't support device_set_platdata. > This routine is required by platforms in which device structure is declared > in a machine specific file and platform data comes from board specific file. > > This will be used by SPEAr patches sent in separate patch series. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@st.com> > --- > include/linux/device.h | 5 +++++ > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h > index 1bf5cf0..6ce0f20 100644 > --- a/include/linux/device.h > +++ b/include/linux/device.h > @@ -576,6 +576,11 @@ static inline void *dev_get_platdata(const struct device *dev) > return dev->platform_data; > } > > +static inline void dev_set_platdata(struct device *dev, void *platdata) > +{ > + dev->platform_data = platdata; > +} > + Note that dev->platform_data was designed to hold dynamically allocated memory, at least it's kfreed in platform_device_release. And note there is platform_device_add_data that kmemdups its argument into pdev->dev.platform_data.
Compared to your dev_set_platdata platform_device_add_data only works for platform_devices, don't know if it's worth to change that.
And regarding platform_device_add_data I wonder if it wouldn't be more consistent to set platform_data = NULL if (!data)? Greg?
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |