From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc.Zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:14:56 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v5 8/8] MTD: physmap: let set_vpp() pass a platform_device instead of a map_info In-Reply-To: References: <1305557977-16871-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1305557977-16871-9-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> Message-ID: <1305558896.30788.15.camel@e102391-lin.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 23:06 +0800, Eric Miao wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > The set_vpp() method provided by physmap passes a map_info back to > > the platform code, which has little relevance as far as the platform > > is concerned (this parameter is completely unused). > > > > Instead, pass the platform_device, which can be used in the pismo > > driver to retrieve some important information in a nicer way, instead > > of the hack that was in place. > > Not really sure if a 'struct device' would be more generic here, though this > case is simply a 'struct platform_device'. While I agree that 'struct device' is more generic, physmap only knows about platform_devices. Should another device type be added to physmap, this would make sense. But at the moment I'd like to limit the code churn to what is strictly necessary. Cheers, M. -- Reality is an implementation detail.