On 01/25/2017 01:25 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:59:15AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> On 01/19/2017 10:12 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>> >>> Back to the actual code that triggered this discussion, the whole >>> purpose is just a safeguard. Given a device reference, we can assume >>> that it is indeed the backing device for a net_device, and we could do a >>> to_net_device() right away (and crash if someone did not write correct >>> platform_data structures), or, by walking the device tree (the device >>> driver model one) we can make sure it does belong in the proper class >>> and this is indeed what we think it is. >> >> Greg, did Russell's explanation clarify things, or do you still think >> this is completely bogus and we need to re design the whole thing? >> >> Just asking so I can try to resubmit just the preparatory parts or just >> the whole thing. > > Sorry, I haven't gotten back to this, it's lower on my list. Should try > to get to it tomorrow...
Greg, please give some feedback here, I can only produce new patches as fast as I am given feedback, and I would really hate to miss the 4.11 merge window because we have been sleeping on this. If there is a need to clarify things, I will be more than happy to try to provide information. Thank you! -- Florian