On Tue, 02 Jul 2019, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 19:47:16 +0800 Fuqian Huang wrote:
> > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> 於 2019年7月2日週二 下午5:51寫道：
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:20 AM Fuqian Huang <huangfq.dax...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not an expert on this. I just write a coccinelle script to search
> > > > this kind of misuse and fix it in a naive way.
> > > > Could you tell me about how to use the proper bus accessors? Then I
> > > > will fix it up and resend a v2 patch set.
> > >
> > > First, don't top post.
> > > And answering to this, simple drop the patch.
> > > Proper bus accessors is exactly what it's used in the current code.
> >
> > But why not use dev_get_drvdata directly.
> > It simplifies getting the 'driver_data' from 'struct device' directly.
> > And the platform_device here is not required.
> > Replace it can remove the unnecessary step back and forth. (dev -> pdev ->
> > dev).
> >
> Did you check whether the compiler generates different (better) code
> with and without your patch? My guess is it won't.
I can see Fuqian's point. If bus APIs are preferred, maybe it would
be nicer if the function was adapted to accept a platform_device
instead?
Caveat: I haven't taken the time to look into the call-site details.
This comment is based on just the patch alone.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
