On Friday 04 November 2005 6:28 pm, Stephen Street wrote:
> My understanding also. Let's at least do the renames.
Consider it done.
I'll leave "controller_data" in board_info and spi_device too.
You're right ... plus, we need to let that be separate from the
controller platform_data for hotplugging usage, spi_new_device()
and such.
> Occupying some spare cycles is the idea that what we really need is the
> ability to sub-class spi_device and spi_master via structure embedding.
> This would be in the spirit of the 2.6 driver model and would map to the
> platform_device model better.
Not really. "Struture embedding" is used more by bus infrastruture than
by driver infrastructure ... and even there, it's more often done by
sharing storage. And spi_master supports that usage:
/* at the top of probe(dev) */
struct spi_master *master;
struct MYSOC_DATA *data;
master = spi_alloc_master(dev, sizeof *data);
if (!master)
return -ENODEV;
data = class_get_devdata(&master->cdev);
That's because spi_master is a class view of the underlying "dev",
used to access the controller hardware. (Likely a platform_device
created as part of board setup.)
A difference for normal spi_device nodes is that the drivers you'd
presumably want to "subclass" spi_device isn't responsible for
creating the device note. It might however create a class device
node, and that could end up looking much like that spi_master snippet.
- Dave
-
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]