On 9/11/2007, "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> I don't know your code and I don't really have the time to look at it
>> in depth, but I'm a bit surprised. Presumably your driver is
>> implementing a number of interfaces (e.g. hwm
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Jean Delvare wrote:
> >I will see what I can do about breaking it up in various modules. But this
> >can be unoptimal. If I took it too seriously, thinkpad-acpi would break into
> >at least five different modules, if not more, and at least one or two
> >modules would need to b
Hi Henrique,
On 9/10/2007, "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Sep 2007, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> * Detection could be moved to user-space entirely, then we would only
>> need a way to instantiate these specific devices from user-space. This
>> exists in other areas
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007, Jean Delvare wrote:
> This more general than just the platform bus. It's how the Linux 2.6
> device driver model is designed.
No issues about that. It is just that the platform bus sucks a bit if you
need to "abuse it" (no wonder!) to hang various different devices that are
p
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:56:59 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On 9/7/07, Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > To go one step further, I am questioning the real value of this naming
> > > exception for these "unique" platform devices. O
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 03:35:59PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Greg, all,
>
> While platform_device.id is a u32, platform_device_add() handles "-1" as
> a special id value. This has potential for confusion and bugs. One such
> bug was reported to me by David Brownell:
>
> http://lists.lm-sens
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 00:50:22 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007, David Brownell wrote:
> > > I don't feel like drivers like hdaps, thinkpad-acpi, dock, bay,
> > > and many others really belong in the platform bus. But that's
> > > what happens right now.
> >
> > As a r
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:56:59 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On 9/7/07, Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To go one step further, I am questioning the real value of this naming
> > exception for these "unique" platform devices. On top of the bugs I
> > mentioned above, it has p
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007, David Brownell wrote:
> > The platform for a ThinkPad is either i386 or amd64.
>
> Both i386 and x86_64 are clearly an "arch". They even live in
> an "arch" directory: linux/arch/{i386,x86_64}.
Well, I stand corrected on the "platform" term, then.
> When folk talk about a
> > (Also, note that "platform", "host", and "board" are ambiguous.
> > In some contexts each is synonymous; in others, not. I avoid
>
> In this specific case I am talking about, they're not.
That is, in *YOUR* usage context they're not. I had to parse
what you wrote a few times before your comm
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007, David Brownell wrote:
> > > For that matter, a *driver* should never create its own device node(s)
> > > in the first place. Device creation belongs elsewhere, like as part of
> > > platform setup or, for busses with integral enumeration support like
> > > PCI or USB, bus glue
> > For that matter, a *driver* should never create its own device node(s)
> > in the first place. Device creation belongs elsewhere, like as part of
> > platform setup or, for busses with integral enumeration support like
> > PCI or USB, bus glue. Linux is moving away from that legacy model.
>
>
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007, David Brownell wrote:
> For that matter, a *driver* should never create its own device node(s)
> in the first place. Device creation belongs elsewhere, like as part of
> platform setup or, for busses with integral enumeration support like
> PCI or USB, bus glue. Linux is movi
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 9/7/07, Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To go one step further, I am questioning the real value of this naming
> > exception for these "unique" platform devices. On top of the bugs I
> > mentioned above, it has potential for compatibility
> If a device has a . scheme this implies possibility of
> having several instances of said device in a box. There are a few of
> platform devices that can only have one instance
Like USB peripheral controllers. Only one external "B" type
connector is allowed.
> - for example i8042
> keyb
Hi Dmitry,
Thanks for your answer.
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:58:31 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 9/7/07, Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While platform_device.id is a u32, platform_device_add() handles "-1" as
> > a special id value. This has potential for confusion and bugs. One suc
Hi Jean,
On 9/7/07, Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Greg, all,
>
> While platform_device.id is a u32, platform_device_add() handles "-1" as
> a special id value. This has potential for confusion and bugs. One such
> bug was reported to me by David Brownell:
>
> http://lists.lm-sensors
17 matches
Mail list logo
