Re: [RFC] pwm: chip_data vs device_data

[Olliver Schinagl <oliver+list@schinagl.nl>]

Hey Thierry,

thans for your quick reply :)

On 06-10-15 09:38, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:20:53AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
>> 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?
> The reason for the name is that it's chip-specific data associated with
> a struct pwm_device. That is, a PWM chip implementation (i.e. driver)
> can use it to keep per-PWM data that's not in struct pwm_device itself.
Then I have to wrap my head around what is a chip and what is a device :)

To me, it seems that a chip can hold X number of pwm devices, and each 
pwm_device has a unique set of properties, duty, plarity, period. So it 
seems that some device specific data could go here as well, where i'm 
bad at examples now
>
>> Again, is this something worth my time to add a device_data and rename
>> chip_data?
> device_data would be redundant because it's already part of struct
> pwm_device. Plain data might be okay, but I like the chip_ prefix
> because it marks the data as being chip-specific data rather than
> generic.
well here i'd imagine the chip specific data (not allready in the struct).

I'll be subimtting my RFC work later this week after a little bit more 
work and will bring this up again :)

Olliver
>
> Thierry