On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 02:06:20AM +0000, Keith Zhao wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
> > Sent: 2024年11月20日 22:56
> > To: Keith Zhao <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; William Qiu
> > <[email protected]>; Xingyu Wu <[email protected]>;
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; Changhuang Liang
> > <[email protected]>; Jack Zhu <[email protected]>;
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/9] drm: bridge: inno-hdmi: add inno bridge driver.
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 02:18:42PM +0800, keith zhao wrote:
> > > +struct platform_driver inno_hdmi_driver = {
> > > + .probe  = inno_hdmi_rockchip_probe,
> > > + .remove_new = inno_hdmi_rockchip_remove,
> > 
> > Please use .remove instead of .remove_new.
> > 
> Thank you for the clarification regarding .remove_new. 
> I understand that it's a relic and that new drivers should implement 
> .remove().
> 
> I have a question. One of the changes in this patch is to rename some 
> function interfaces. 
> The original code is like this. 
> 
> struct platform_driver inno_hdmi_driver = {
>       .probe  = inno_hdmi_probe,
>       .remove_new = inno_hdmi_remove,
>       .driver = {
>               .name = "innohdmi-rockchip",
>               .of_match_table = inno_hdmi_dt_ids,
>       },
> };
> 
> Rename inno_hdmi_probe and inno_hdmi_remove
> struct platform_driver inno_hdmi_driver = {
>       .probe  = inno_hdmi_rockchip_probe,
>       .remove_new = inno_hdmi_rockchip_remove,
>       .driver = {
>               .name = "innohdmi-rockchip",
>               .of_match_table = inno_hdmi_dt_ids,
>       },
> };
> Based on the principle of maintaining consistency, 
> does it(remove_new) need to be changed?

If this isn't new code but moving from somewhere, don't change
.remove_new into .remove in the same patch. If you want, fix that in a
separate patch then.

Best regards
Uwe

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to