On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:40:16PM -0500, Kylene Hall wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 05:19:03PM -0500, Kylene Hall wrote:
> > > - device_remove_file(&pci_dev->dev, &dev_attr_pubek);
> > > - device_remove_file(&pci_dev->dev, &dev_attr_pcrs);
> > > - device_remove_file(&pci_dev->dev, &dev_attr_caps);
> > > + for (i = 0; i < TPM_NUM_ATTR; i++)
> > > + device_remove_file(&pci_dev->dev, &chip->vendor->attr[i]);
> >
> > Use an attribute group, instead of this. That will allow you to get
> > rid of the TPM_NUM_ATTR value, and this looney macro:
> >
> > > +#define TPM_DEVICE_ATTRS { \
> > > + __ATTR(pubek, S_IRUGO, tpm_show_pubek, NULL), \
> > > + __ATTR(pcrs, S_IRUGO, tpm_show_pcrs, NULL), \
> > > + __ATTR(caps, S_IRUGO, tpm_show_caps, NULL), \
> > > + __ATTR(cancel, S_IWUSR | S_IWGRP, NULL, tpm_store_cancel) }
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> >
> >
>
> Ok, the patch below has the same functionality as the previous patch but
> gets rid of the macro and implements an attribute_group. Is there any way
> to avoid the repeated code in every tpm_specific file to setup the
> attribute_group and still ensure the files are owned by the tpm_specific
> module? The only thing I can come up with is either not using the
> TPM_DEVICE macro at all or creating with TPM_DEVICE macro and then
> changing the owner field.
Why are you trying to split this driver up into such tiny pieces?
What's wrong with one driver for all devices?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
