[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C5k470vB.1189496614.5481670.khali@localhost>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:43:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Jean Delvare" <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: hmh@....eng.br
CC: "David Brownell" <david-b@...bell.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"gregkh@...e.de" <gregkh@...e.de>,
"dmitry.torokhov@...il.com" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Platform device id
Hi Henrique,
On 9/10/2007, "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <hmh@....eng.br> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Sep 2007, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> * Detection could be moved to user-space entirely, then we would only
>> need a way to instantiate these specific devices from user-space. This
>> exists in other areas (scsi, network) for quite some times already so
>> it shouldn't be too difficult.
>
>Don't like that one, sorry. Detection often needs the kind of access to
>hardware that is better off contained in the kernel.
Yes, good point.
>(...)
>I will see what I can do about breaking it up in various modules. But this
>can be unoptimal. If I took it too seriously, thinkpad-acpi would break into
>at least five different modules, if not more, and at least one or two
>modules would need to be there for the common code. There has to be a
>middle ground somewhere, I think.
I don't know your code and I don't really have the time to look at it
in depth, but I'm a bit surprised. Presumably your driver is
implementing a number of interfaces (e.g. hwmon) and you create a class
device for each one. You can have as many class devices hanging of a
(physical) device, so I fail to see why you would need to register
several (physical) devices.
--
Jean Delvare
-
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