From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] serial: 8250_dw: Use new dev variable in probe Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:00:17 +0300 Message-ID: <1472032817.4887.253.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <1468580485-28567-1-git-send-email-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> <1468580485-28567-3-git-send-email-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> <1471864381.4887.202.camel@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:15884 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932362AbcHXKBV (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 06:01:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Kefeng Wang , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jslaby@suse.com, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, guohanjun@huawei.com, z.liuxinliang@hisilicon.com, xuwei5@hisilicon.com, graeme.gregory@linaro.org On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 16:20 +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: > > On 2016/8/22 19:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2016-07-15 at 19:01 +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: > > > > > > Use new dev variable instead of pdev->dev and p->dev in probe > > > function. > > > > I'm not sure we need this one. What is wrong with &pdev->dev? > > Yes, no error in current code. there are &pdev->dev(A) and p->dev(B), > some codes use A, others use B, so I want to use an unified one. > > If someone don't like this, I will drop it, :) I want to say that this change doesn't belong to the series in this case. You may submit it separately later on. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy