[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131101204749.GA19662@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:47:49 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Strange location and name for platform devices when device-tree
is used.
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 04:08:36PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 16:03 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> > Do you mean we could allow multiple devices on the one bus to have the same
> > name, but get sysfs to notice and de-duplicate by mangling one name? I don't
> > think I like that but I might have misunderstood.
>
> What other option do we have ?
>
> > On my device I seem to have some platform devices registered through
> > device-tree, and some registered through platform_device_add (e.g.
> > 'alarmtimer'). Guaranteeing they remain disjoint sets if the kernel is
> > allowed to evolve independently of the devicetree might be tricky....
> > Maybe we need "/sys/devices/platform" and "/sys/devices/dt_platform" ??
>
> No, I think device-tree created platform devices should go
> to /sys/devices/platform like the "classic" ones.
>
> The problem is really how to deal with potential name duplication. We
> could try to register, if we get -EEXIST (assuming sysfs returns the
> right stuff), try again with ".1" etc...
How can there be device name collisions? All platform devices _should_
be named uniquely, if not, you have bigger problems...
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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