search for: mt7915_dev

...dev *dev 1057 struct mlx4_dev *dev 894 struct b43_wldev *dev 762 struct input_dev *dev 623 struct usbnet *dev 561 struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev 525 struct mt76_dev *dev 465 struct mt76x02_dev *dev 435 struct platform_device *dev 431 struct usb_device *dev 411 struct mt7915_dev *dev 398 struct cx231xx *dev 378 struct mei_device *dev 363 struct ksz_device *dev 359 struct mthca_dev *dev A good portion of the above also have a dev member. Are you planning on changing all of the above too, or are you only annoyed by drm? I'm really not convinced at all....

...dev *dev 1057 struct mlx4_dev *dev 894 struct b43_wldev *dev 762 struct input_dev *dev 623 struct usbnet *dev 561 struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev 525 struct mt76_dev *dev 465 struct mt76x02_dev *dev 435 struct platform_device *dev 431 struct usb_device *dev 411 struct mt7915_dev *dev 398 struct cx231xx *dev 378 struct mei_device *dev 363 struct ksz_device *dev 359 struct mthca_dev *dev A good portion of the above also have a dev member. Are you planning on changing all of the above too, or are you only annoyed by drm? I'm really not convinced at all....

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023, Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote: > Hello, > > while I debugged an issue in the imx-lcdc driver I was constantly > irritated about struct drm_device pointer variables being named "dev" > because with that name I usually expect a struct device pointer. > > I think there is a big benefit when these are all renamed to

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023, Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote: > Hello, > > while I debugged an issue in the imx-lcdc driver I was constantly > irritated about struct drm_device pointer variables being named "dev" > because with that name I usually expect a struct device pointer. > > I think there is a big benefit when these are all renamed to