From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olliver Schinagl Subject: [RFC] pwm: chip_data vs device_data Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 09:20:53 +0200 Message-ID: <56137655.40804@schinagl.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from 7of9.schinagl.nl ([88.159.158.68]:33829 "EHLO 7of9.schinagl.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750986AbbJFHVD (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2015 03:21:03 -0400 Sender: linux-pwm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org To: Thierry Reding , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Cc: Olliver Schinagl Hey Thierry, list, While working on something in the pwm framework, I noticed that the void *data in the pwm_device struct is called chip_data. Why is it not called device_data, since it is the data associated with a PWM device, rather then the chip, and on that note, if it really is chip related data (thus covering the whole chip, not just the single pwm device) why is there no chip_data in pwm_chip? Again, is this something worth my time to add a device_data and rename chip_data? Olliver