[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131102104505.34105cbb@notabene.brown>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:45:05 +1100
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
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 Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:10:25 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 13:47 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > > > 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...
>
> The problem is how to create a unique name for a platform device created
> from a device-tree node.
>
> Device tree nodes aren't necessarily uniquely named. They are unique
> under a given parent but that hierarchy isn't preserved when creating
> corresponding platform devices (and it would be very tricky to do so).
>
> Currently, we simply append a number to the name when creating them,
> which is obtained from a global counter.
>
> Neil is unhappy about that because on his specific hardware, the device
> has a unique name and thus we introduce a naming difference between
> device-tree usage and old-style "hard coded" board file usage.
It occurs to me that a different approach could solve my problem.
My problem stems from the fact that the name of the device on the
platform-bus is used as the name of the device in the "backlight" class.
As Greg writes elsewhere, depending on names with /sys/devices is not
supported - we need to accept that bus-names might change.
However names in class devices tend to be a lot more stable.
Several devices allow these to be explicitly set.
leds have 'label'
regulators has "regulator-name"
gpio-keys has 'label'.
I could just teach pwm_bl to allow a 'label' property which would be used in
place of the platform-bus device name when creating the class/backlight
device.
The maxim "you cannot trust names to remain stable in /sys/devices" can
justify both the movement of platform devices into /sys/devices/platform, and
the use of "label" rather than the device-name for creating the class device.
Does that sound convincing?
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> It would be nice if we could do something that only appends the "global
> number" at the end of the name if the name isn't already unique. Thus my
> proposal of trying first with the base name, and trying again if that
> returns -EEXIST in some kind of loop.
>
> Do you have a better idea ?
>
> Cheers,
> Ben.
>
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists