On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > >> You just introduced an unnamed structure of device + resources, >> it isn't declared anywhere but in the code itself (either via >> &foo[1] or buf + sizeof(*foo)). >> >> You're not the only one who hacks (or at least have to >> understand) the OF stuff, so let's try keep this stuff >> readable? >> >> I told you several ways of how to improve the code (based on >> the ideas from drivers/base/, so the ideas aren't even mine, >> fwiw). > > I tend to agree with Anton here.
The reason I'm confident doing it that way is that it is *not* a structure. There is no structure relationship between the resource table and the platform_device other than they are allocated with the same kzalloc() call. All the code that cares about that is contained within 4 lines of code. I'm resistant to using a structure because it is adds an additional 5-6 lines of code to add a structure that won't be used anywhere else, and is only 4 lines to begin with. > BTW. Why not make of_device a wrapper (or even alias of) > platform_device ? :-) That way you get the resource array etc.. for free > and it will make the whole of_device vs. platform_device issue moot. of_device is an alias of platform_device now. The resource array in platform devices is not statically defined. It is allocated separately. I can't currently use the platform_device_alloc code which does separate deallocation because the OF code needs its own release hook to put the node. OTOH, I can probably change the guts of of_release_dev() to be called by platform_device_release(). okay, I'll try changing this an see how it looks. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
