[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FF1F145.2050408@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:06:45 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Fernando Guzman Lugo <fernando.lugo@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: maintain a generic child device for each
rproc
On 06/29/12 01:13, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com> wrote:
>> In this case, I was more wondering between using a class to a device type.
>>
>>> I recall seeing a thread where
>>> someone said classes were on the way out and shouldn't be used but I
>>> can't find it anymore.
>> I also remembered a similar discussion at a plumbers mini-conf about
>> 2-3 years ago too, so I looked at device_type as an alternative to
>> class. The former looks somewhat simpler, but I couldn't find any
>> major advantage for using one over the other, and both seem to be in
>> use by many subsystems.
> Moving to device_type is so trivial that I gave it a spin (and moved
> to IDA too while at it):
Great! It looks like device_type doesn't have any list iteration support
though. Is that requirement gone? If that requirement is still there I
would think we need something like a class or bus still.
Will you resend this as part of a series? It will be easier to review then.
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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