On 7/25/05, Russell King <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:16:05AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > If the problem is that you have a single piece of hardware you need to
> > bind several drivers to - I guess you will have to create a new
> > sub-device bus for that. Or just register sub-devices on the same bus
> > the parent device is registered on - I am not sure what is best in
> > this particular case - I am not familiar with the arch.
>
> That is exactly the problem - these kinds of devices do _not_ fit
> well into the device model. A struct device for every different
> possible sub-unit is completely overkill.
>
> For instance, you may logically use one ADC and some GPIO lines
> on the device for X and something else for Y and they logically
> end up in different drivers.
>
> The problem is that the parent doesn't actually know how many
> devices to create nor what to call them, and they're logically
> indistinguishable from each other so there's no logical naming
> system.
>
Then we should probably not try to force them into driver model. Have
parent device register struct device and when sub-drivers register
they could attach class devices (like input devices) directly to the
"main" device thus hiding presence of sub-sections of the chip from
sysfs completely. My point is that we should not be using
class_interface here - its purpose is diferent.
--
Dmitry
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |