On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 18:16, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > I think this is good enough for now (as long as there's a comment > like Peter suggested). Allowing parent_realize to be NULL would > be inconvenient to all code that uses parent_realize today. > > Personally, I would love to get rid of parent_realize entirely. > We could simply provide a helper to let device subclasses call > the parent's realize function without the need to copy function > pointers around.
Agreed -- parent_realize is a hack that is working around a deficiency in our object model, and it would be nice to deal with that. But let's do our cleanups one at a time :-) thanks -- PMM