[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYaaSt9uLN2_=KXYDK2b5D5paopsYxgYKqezKCx8cy=vQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:27:15 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
w.sang@...gutronix.de, jbe@...gutronix.de, plagnioj@...osoft.com,
highguy@...il.com, broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
daniel-gl@....net, rmallon@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 02/11 v4] gpio: Add sysfs support to block GPIO API
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:53:45PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
>>
>> Further, current gpio and gpiochip devices are also doing this way:
>> creating the device and subsequently their attrs, even though there may
>> be a better way but I'm still wondering how this would be.
>
> Then the existing code is broken and should be fixed to use dev_attrs.
> I guess it's time to audit the tree and find all places that get this
> wrong...
The thing is, as I've tried to explain but maybe didn't get across,
that these devices don't *have* a parent, and are not part of any
tree.
They are parentless mock devices, created on-the-fly just to get
sysfs entries.
What is needed it to get the device model right in the first
place.
Fixing it has been drafted by me and Grant:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/linux-linaro/+spec/gpiochip-to-dev
This is not all-encompassing though :-/
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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