From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.246]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80907DE07D for ; Sat, 24 May 2008 16:43:59 +1000 (EST) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c34so243096anc.78 for ; Fri, 23 May 2008 23:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 00:43:58 -0600 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca To: "David Brownell" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] spi: split up spi_new_device() to allow two stage registration. In-Reply-To: <200805211717.13206.david-b@pacbell.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <20080516193054.28030.35126.stgit@trillian.secretlab.ca> <20080516193608.28030.34968.stgit@trillian.secretlab.ca> <200805211717.13206.david-b@pacbell.net> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, fabrizio.garetto@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 6:17 PM, David Brownell wrote: > On Friday 16 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote: >> >> This patch splits the allocation and registration portions of code out >> of spi_new_device() and creates three new functions; spi_alloc_device(), >> spi_register_device(), and spi_device_release(). > > I have no problem with the first two, but why the last? > > If the devices are always allocated by spi_alloc_device() as > they should be -- probably through an intermediary -- the > only public function necessary for that cleanup should be > the existing spi_dev_put(). Ah, okay. I'm still a bit fuzzy on the device model conventions. I'll remove that then. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.