Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Oct 2015 10:21:34 +0200 | From | Olliver Schinagl <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] pwm: chip_data vs device_data |
| |
Hey Thierry,
thans for your quick reply :)
On 06-10-15 09:38, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:20:53AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote: >> Hey Thierry, list, >> >> While working on something in the pwm framework, I noticed that the void >> *data in the pwm_device struct is called chip_data. Why is it not called >> device_data, since it is the data associated with a PWM device, rather then >> the chip, and on that note, if it really is chip related data (thus covering >> the whole chip, not just the single pwm device) why is there no chip_data in >> pwm_chip? > The reason for the name is that it's chip-specific data associated with > a struct pwm_device. That is, a PWM chip implementation (i.e. driver) > can use it to keep per-PWM data that's not in struct pwm_device itself. Then I have to wrap my head around what is a chip and what is a device :)
To me, it seems that a chip can hold X number of pwm devices, and each pwm_device has a unique set of properties, duty, plarity, period. So it seems that some device specific data could go here as well, where i'm bad at examples now > >> Again, is this something worth my time to add a device_data and rename >> chip_data? > device_data would be redundant because it's already part of struct > pwm_device. Plain data might be okay, but I like the chip_ prefix > because it marks the data as being chip-specific data rather than > generic. well here i'd imagine the chip specific data (not allready in the struct).
I'll be subimtting my RFC work later this week after a little bit more work and will bring this up again :)
Olliver > > Thierry
| |