"Cousson, Benoit" <b-cous...@ti.com> writes:
[...]
>>> @@ -471,72 +572,31 @@ struct platform_device *omap_device_build_ss(const
>>> char *pdev_name, int pdev_id,
>>> goto odbs_exit;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - pr_debug("omap_device: %s: building with %d hwmods\n", pdev_name,
>>> - oh_cnt);
>>> + /* Set the dev_name early to allow dev_xxx in omap_device_alloc */
>>> + if (pdev->id != -1)
>>> + dev_set_name(&pdev->dev, "%s.%d", pdev->name, pdev->id);
>>> + else
>>> + dev_set_name(&pdev->dev, "%s", pdev->name);
>>
>> Minor: I think setting dev->init_name is more appropriate here, and
>> should have the same effect.
>
> The slight difference is that if I do that:
> pdev->dev.init_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s.%d", pdev->name, pdev->id);
>
> I will have to free it myself, because device_add is doing only that:
>
> if (dev->init_name) {
> dev_set_name(dev, "%s", dev->init_name);
> dev->init_name = NULL;
> }
>
> Whereas dev_set_name is doing it for me.
>
> So it will add one more line later. Does it worth it?
OK, keeping dev_set_name() is fine with me then.
Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
