[RFC] device.h: add device_set_platdata routine

[gregkh@suse.de (Greg KH)]

On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 08:59:53AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> [added gregkh and lkml to Cc:]
> 
> Hi Viresh,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 10:03:20AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > device.h supports device_get_platdata but doesn't support device_set_platdata.
> > This routine is required by platforms in which device structure is declared
> > in a machine specific file and platform data comes from board specific file.
> > 
> > This will be used by SPEAr patches sent in separate patch series.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@st.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/device.h |    5 +++++
> >  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
> > index 1bf5cf0..6ce0f20 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/device.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/device.h
> > @@ -576,6 +576,11 @@ static inline void *dev_get_platdata(const struct device *dev)
> >  	return dev->platform_data;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static inline void dev_set_platdata(struct device *dev, void *platdata)
> > +{
> > +	dev->platform_data = platdata;
> > +}
> > +
> Note that dev->platform_data was designed to hold dynamically allocated
> memory, at least it's kfreed in platform_device_release.  And note there
> is platform_device_add_data that kmemdups its argument into
> pdev->dev.platform_data.
> 
> Compared to your dev_set_platdata platform_device_add_data only works
> for platform_devices, don't know if it's worth to change that.
> 
> And regarding platform_device_add_data I wonder if it wouldn't be more
> consistent to set platform_data = NULL if (!data)?  Greg?

Maybe, care to send a patch?

thanks,

greg k-h