[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130219154741.GH4390@arwen.pp.htv.fi>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:47:41 +0200
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: <balbi@...com>, kishon <kishon@...com>, <rob@...dley.net>,
<tony@...mide.com>, <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
<eballetbo@...il.com>, <javier@...hile0.org>,
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<mchehab@...hat.com>, <cesarb@...arb.net>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<santosh.shilimkar@...com>, <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
<swarren@...dia.com>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Generic PHY Framework
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 03:28:17PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 February 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 02:34:40PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 19 February 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:33:54PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > It's a fine line, but I think a phy is something that resembles a device
> > > more than an LED does. When I read patch 1, I also noticed and commented
> > > on the fact that it does use a 'class'. Now, according to Greg, we should
> > > use 'bus_type' instead of 'class' in new code. I originally disagreed with
> > > that concept, but he's the boss here and it's good if he has a vision
> > > how things should be lined out.
> > >
> > > In practice, there is little difference between a 'bus_type' and a 'class',
> > > so just replace any instance of the former with the latter in your head
> > > when reading the code ;-)
> >
> > it's not so simple :-) if we must use bus_type we need to introduce all
> > the device/driver matching mechanism which isn't necessary with a class.
>
> I think the idea is to use a bus_type that has devices but no drivers
> associated with it, but I might be misremembering things.
but then drivers wouldn't probe ever, although devices would get
created, so maybe it'll work...
> > Greg, can you pitch your suggestion here ? It would be great to hear
> > your rationale behind dropping class infrastructure, couldn't find
> > anything through Google and since feature-removal-schedule.txt has been
> > removed (without adding it to feature-removal-schedule.txt, I must add
> > :-) I don't know what's the idea behind removing classes.
>
> I believe for now, the idea is to not add any new classes, but keep
> the existing ones for compatibility. 'struct class_device' however
> was already removed and got turned into 'struct device'.
was there ever a "struct class_device".
What about struct class ?
<linux/device.h> ::
334 struct class {
335 const char *name;
336 struct module *owner;
337
338 struct class_attribute *class_attrs;
339 struct device_attribute *dev_attrs;
340 struct bin_attribute *dev_bin_attrs;
341 struct kobject *dev_kobj;
342
343 int (*dev_uevent)(struct device *dev, struct kobj_uevent_env *env);
344 char *(*devnode)(struct device *dev, umode_t *mode);
345
346 void (*class_release)(struct class *class);
347 void (*dev_release)(struct device *dev);
348
349 int (*suspend)(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state);
350 int (*resume)(struct device *dev);
351
352 const struct kobj_ns_type_operations *ns_type;
353 const void *(*namespace)(struct device *dev);
354
355 const struct dev_pm_ops *pm;
356
357 struct subsys_private *p;
358 };
--
balbi
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists