From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@deeprootsystems.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:28:29 -0700 Subject: [PATCH/RFC] Runtime PM: ARM: subarch-specific extensions of pdev_archdata In-Reply-To: <19129.63264.653666.70492@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> References: <1253670648-28610-1-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> <19129.63264.653666.70492@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> Message-ID: <4ABAAF1D.6090907@deeprootsystems.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Mikael Pettersson wrote: > Eric Miao writes: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Kevin Hilman > > wrote: > > > On ARM platforms, power management can be very platform specific. > > > This patch allows ARM subarches to extend the platform_device > > > pdev_archdata for each subarch by creating a new struct pdev_machdata > > > and allowing each subarch to customize it as needed. > > > > > > As a starting point, each subarch's creates an empty > > > struct pdev_machdata. > > > > > > > Shouldn't that pdev_archdata and pdev_machdata be pointer or something > > so that multiple platform_device can share something in common? > > Forcing it to be a pointer has allocation and lifetime implications. > Making it a struct allows the subarch to duplicate or share > (via a private pointer) data as it sees fit. Yes, the allocation/lifetime issues were why a struct was chosen. Kevin