[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45E2CEB0.8010503@yandex.ru>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:12:32 +0200
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...dex.ru>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Frank Haverkamp <haver@...t.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/44 take 2] [UBI] kernel-spce API header
Greg KH wrote:
> Are you sure this is the proper license for new kernel code coming from
> IBM these days? You might want to go verify that the "or any later
> version" is allowed right now...
Hi Greg,
you advised me to use the "class" sysfs category which I did. But I've
read at LWN that there is a long-term plan to get rid of this category
altogether. So may I ask you the same question I asked some time ago.
UBI works on top of MTD devices. MTD device may perfectly well support
the device/driver/bus model. But how this model does not really fit UBI
because we have no bus.
Please, advice me, should I keep using the "class" category which seems
fine for me or should I use the device/driver/bus stuff? What do I do
with bus then? I tried this some time ago and things did not work with
NULL bus.
Thanks,
Artem.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists