device_destroy

device_destroy

[James Simmons]

While porting over a few class_devices I discovered a problem with 
device_destroy. It uses a dev_t which several classes don't use. 
Should all classes require a dev_t or should we just pass in the device
itself?

Re: device_destroy

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:51:08PM +0000, James Simmons wrote:
> 
> While porting over a few class_devices I discovered a problem with 
> device_destroy. It uses a dev_t which several classes don't use. 
> Should all classes require a dev_t or should we just pass in the device
> itself?

As you don't have a dev_t, then you have a handle to the 'struct device'
itself, right?  Then just call device_unregister(), that's all that
device_destroy() does after it finds the device in the list of devices
associated with the class.

Does this help?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: device_destroy

[James Simmons]

> > While porting over a few class_devices I discovered a problem with 
> > device_destroy. It uses a dev_t which several classes don't use. 
> > Should all classes require a dev_t or should we just pass in the device
> > itself?
> 
> As you don't have a dev_t, then you have a handle to the 'struct device'
> itself, right?  Then just call device_unregister(), that's all that
> device_destroy() does after it finds the device in the list of devices
> associated with the class.
> 
> Does this help?

Okay. I needed to know if calling device_unregister directly was valid.
Thank you.