On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:50:03 +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
struct i915_audio_component { struct device *dev;
- struct hdac_bus *hdac_bus;
If we want to be more generic, using a struct device would be better, e.g. struct device *audio_dev;
Does this work? If we want to have the hdac_bus.dev ptr instead of a hdac_bus ptr, there does not seem to be an obvious way to go from the audio_dev back to the hdac_bus struct (as snd_hdac_bus_init takes an arbitrary dev pointer).
Hrm, right, currently it's not straightforward. Scratch the idea, then.
void (*hotplug_notify)(struct hdac_bus *, const struct i915_audio_hotplug_info *);- } *cb_ops;
cb_ops doesn't sound intuitive. Any better name?
I was thinking of it as "callback ops", i e, calls that go in the reverse direction compared to the already existing "ops".
But if we call the device "audio_dev" as you suggested above, then maybe "audio_ops" would be nice and symmetric?
Yes, it sounds better.
Takashi