On 17/04/2018 14:18, Igor Mammedov wrote: >> What's the point of an object name if it cannot be unique? > It should be sufficient for it to be unique within parent's > scope and object_property_add_child() should make sure that > added object is unique within its parent's namespace. > Having named object from starters is useful as object > won't have to piggyback on parent (object_get_canonical_path_component) > when it need its own name. Then named object could use its name > freely anywhere including initfn, property setters/getters and > let object_property_add_child() take care of possible name > conflict.
I agree that it looks nice, but I'm worried that people forget that the path component is only unique until object_unparent(). The use for DEVICE_DELETED events is already a bad thing... Paolo
