Hi!
> > > 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.
>
> If you look at _my_ version, you'll notice that it doesn't use the
> class interface stuff. A previous version of it did, and this seems
> to be what the collie stuff is based upon.
>
> What I suggest is that the collie folk need to update their driver
> to my version so that we don't have two different forks of the same
Yep, will do, and sorry for the confusion.
Pavel
--
teflon -- maybe it is a trademark, but it should not be.
-
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]
| |
 |