On 8/15/05, Alan Stern <[email protected]> wrote:
> On the face of it, neither is particularly more attractive than the other.
> However, reading through the various places that call these routines (for
> example, drivers/input/serio/serio.c or drivers/pnp/card.c) revealed a
> pattern. In most cases, the callers of device_bind_driver _really_ want
> something that functions more like driver_probe_device but without the
> matching step. The callers are invoking the probe methods by hand rather
> than relying on the driver core to do so. There's maybe only one place
> where a caller actually does want the device bound to the driver without
> doing a probe.
>
Alan,
I am sorry I don't have time to properly review the patch at
themoment, just a couple of comments about serio - I would not look at
serio for examples of typical use as it was trying very hard to work
around the original driver model limitation that prevented drivers to
register childern on the same bus from their probe function. I think
now that that limitation is lifted serio implemenation can be
simplified.
--
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]
| |
 |