On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 18:04 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 05:12:27PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > +struct device_node *of_get_pci_dev_node(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > +{
> > + return of_node_get(pci_device_to_OF_node(pdev));
> > +}
>
> [...]
>
> > - dn = of_node_get(pci_device_to_OF_node(dev));
> > + dn = of_get_pci_dev_node(dev);
>
> Is this really useful or wise?Yes, and yes. > As a matter of personal taste, I find stuff like this clutters > and confuses my mind. I go to read new code, and I run across some > routine I haven't heard of before ... e.g. of_get_pci_dev_node(), > so now I have to look it up to see what it does. A few minutes later, > I realize that its just a pair of old freinds (of_node_get and > pci_device_to_OF_node) and so now I have to make mental room for it. > > Tommorrow, or 3 days later, I'm again looking at of_get_pci_dev_node() > and I'm thinking "gee what did that thing do again??" It does what pci_device_to_OF_node() does, but in the right way. The plan is to remove pci_device_to_OF_node() once all the callers have been converted to properly handle the refcounting. When that happens you can use the mental room it consumed for something else :) cheers -- Michael Ellerman OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183) We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
