[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100806142727.GB4921@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 07:27:27 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc: Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@...cinc.com>,
Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"damm@...nsource.se" <damm@...nsource.se>,
"lethal@...ux-sh.org" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
"rjw@...k.pl" <rjw@...k.pl>, "dtor@...l.ru" <dtor@...l.ru>,
"eric.y.miao@...il.com" <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] platform: Faciliatate the creation of
pseduo-platform busses
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 04:59:35PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> (On that point Greg, what is the reason for even having the
> /sys/devices/platform/ parent? Why not just let the platform devices
> sit at the root of the device tree? In the OF case (granted, I'm
> biased) all of the platform_device registrations reflect the actual
> device hierarchy expressed in the device tree data.)
If we sat them at the "root", there would be a bunch of them there. I
don't know, we could drop the parent, I guess whoever created the
platform device oh so long ago, decided that it would look nicer to be
in this type of structure.
> Now, having gone on this whole long tirade, it looks like having
> separate platform bus types may not be the best approach after all.
I totally agree, and thanks for the detailed explaination, it saved me
from having to write up the same thing :)
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists