Hello, Dmitry.
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 4/19/07, Cornelia Huck <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:13:43 -0400,
>> "Dmitry Torokhov" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Because they are managed by 2 different entities. the struct device
>> > objects are managed by device core and driver-specific objects are
>> > managed by their respective driver.
>>
>> Not sure if I understand you here. My view of this was always that the
>> embedding object was kind of an extended device and that the relevant
>> driver/subsystem managed it through the driver core infrastructure.
>>
>
> I am not sure if I agree with this point of view. Driver (or
> subsystem) provides an instance of struct device for the rest of the
> system to iteract uniformly with (suspend/resume/tree
> visualization/etc) i.e. struct device implement an interface for
> subsystems. However most of the system use their own mechanisms to
> manage their devices. They can rely on the driver core to a certain
> degree but driver core is mostly a carries out helper functions, not
> the meat.
Many drivers (at least all the SCSI/IDE ones) consider struct device as
the base class of the devices those drivers implement. I don't think we
can just consider those drivers to be wrong.
--
tejun
-
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]
