[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d2f54afa-de04-ef34-e8ba-bc88cae26813@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:15:42 -0500
From: Vijay Kumar <vijay.ac.kumar@...cle.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb/core: Added devspec sysfs entry for devices behind
usb hub
On 10/4/2016 2:49 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:04:40PM -0700, Vijay Kumar wrote:
>> Grub finds incorrect of_node path for devices behind usb hub.
>> Added devspec sysfs entry for devices behind usb hub so that
>> right of_node path is returned during grub sysfs walk for these
>> devices.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vijay Kumar <vijay.ac.kumar@...cle.com>
>>
>> ---
>> drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>> 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c b/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c
>> index c953a0f..84d66d5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c
>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>> #include <linux/string.h>
>> #include <linux/usb.h>
>> #include <linux/usb/quirks.h>
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> #include "usb.h"
>>
>> /* Active configuration fields */
>> @@ -104,6 +105,17 @@ static ssize_t bConfigurationValue_store(struct device *dev,
>> static DEVICE_ATTR_IGNORE_LOCKDEP(bConfigurationValue, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR,
>> bConfigurationValue_show, bConfigurationValue_store);
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>> +static ssize_t devspec_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
>> + char *buf)
>> +{
>> + struct device_node *of_node = dev->of_node;
>> +
>> + return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", of_node_full_name(of_node));
>> +}
>> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(devspec);
>> +#endif
> Any way to do this without the #ifdef?
Thanks for your comment. I looked into it again and find that grub would
report ofpath incorrectly if CONFIG_OF not defined but devspec sysfs
file exists.
I see pci-sysfs.c has also defines devspec in same way.
>
> And you need to also update Documentation/ABI if you add a new sysfs
> file.
>
Sure, if you agree with my above comment then should I make Document/ABI
changes in a separate patch?
Thanks,
Vijay
Powered by blists - more mailing lists