[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1250589285.5150.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:54:45 -0700
From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To: Alan Jenkins <sourcejedi.lkml@...glemail.com>
Cc: Mario Limonciello <mario_limonciello@...l.com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cezary.jackiewicz@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Drop platform sysfs support
Hi Alan,
> > With rfkill support being added, the platform support is no longer
> > necessary. Standard rfkill interfaces can be used to administer the box
> > now.
> > --
> > Mario Limonciello
> > *Dell | Linux Engineering*
> > mario_limonciello@...l.com
> >
>
> -static struct platform_device *compal_device;
>
> I don't think this is the right way to go. I don't object to removing
> the sysfs attributes, but the platform device can still be useful as a
> parent device to the rfkill and backlight devices. (See my earlier
> comment on the use of rfkill_allocate()).
>
> In practice I suspect it makes no difference that the rfkill and
> backlight devices are exported as virtual devices with no physical
> parent. I just don't think it's "right" :-).
it actually does make a difference for hardware detection. We wanna have
them hanging of the compal platform device.
Regards
Marcel
--
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