From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752445AbbJFHVF (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2015 03:21:05 -0400 Received: from 7of9.schinagl.nl ([88.159.158.68]:33829 "EHLO 7of9.schinagl.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750986AbbJFHVD (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2015 03:21:03 -0400 Message-ID: <56137655.40804@schinagl.nl> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 09:20:53 +0200 From: Olliver Schinagl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thierry Reding , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" CC: Olliver Schinagl Subject: [RFC] pwm: chip_data vs device_data Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? Again, is this something worth my time to add a device_data and rename chip_data? Olliver