Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:23:11 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: two patches - request for comments |
| |
Andrew Zabolotny wrote: > No. class_find_device was written for lcd_find_device() and > backlight_find_device() (framebuffer devices use them). On the other hand, > the driver that registers the backlight device doesn't have a pointer to the > class device (well, the lcd_register_device could return it). Since the > lcd/backlight names are unique anyway, I don't see any problems with that, and > moreover, it is *registered* by giving it a name, why it should be > unregistered in a different way?
Typical Linux usage to an item being registered is
ptr = alloc_foo() register_foo(ptr) unregister_foo(ptr) free_foo()
It is quite unusual to unregister based on name. Pointers are far more likely to be unique, and the programmer is far less likely to screw up the unregister operation.
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |