[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 12/26] dm: core: Allow uclasses to specific the private data for a device's children

[Masahiro Yamada]

Hi Simon,



Perhaps a typo in this subject, too

dm: core: Allow uclasses to specific the private data for a device's children

s/to specific/to specify/  ??


On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:12:41 -0700
Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:

> In many cases the per-child private data for a device's children is defined
> by the uclass rather than the individual driver. For example, a SPI bus
> needs to store information about each of its children, but all SPI drivers
> store the same information. It makes sense to allow the uclass to define
> this data.
> 
> If the driver provides a size value for its per-child private data, then use
> it. Failng that, fall back to that provided by the uclass.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> ---
> 
> Changes in v2: None
> 
>  drivers/core/device-remove.c |  4 ++++
>  drivers/core/device.c        |  4 ++++
>  include/dm/uclass.h          |  4 ++++
>  test/dm/bus.c                | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/core/device-remove.c b/drivers/core/device-remove.c
> index 56c358a..3a5f48d 100644
> --- a/drivers/core/device-remove.c
> +++ b/drivers/core/device-remove.c
> @@ -126,6 +126,10 @@ void device_free(struct udevice *dev)
>  	}
>  	if (dev->parent) {
>  		size = dev->parent->driver->per_child_auto_alloc_size;
> +		if (!size) {
> +			size = dev->parent->uclass->uc_drv->
> +					per_child_auto_alloc_size;
> +		}
>  		if (size) {
>  			free(dev->parent_priv);
>  			dev->parent_priv = NULL;


Hmm, do we need to check the per_child_auto_alloc_size?
Is it better and simpler to check dev->parent_priv like this?

      if (dev->parent && !dev->parent_priv) {
               free(dev->parent_priv);
               dev->parent_priv = NULL;
      }

Or further more simpily

      if (dev->parent) {
               free(dev->parent_priv);
               dev->parent_priv = NULL;
      }

When free() is given with NULL pointer, it returns without doing anything,
I think.



Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada