On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
quoted text
> 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.

Personally I'd rather see a meaningful structure used here.  Maybe
having them all in the root will encourage people to find realistic
parents for their platform devices.  :-)  Why don't I float a patch to
remove this and see if anybody freaks out.  Should I wrap it with a
CONFIG_ so that it can be configurable for a release or to, or just
make it unconditional?

quoted text
>> 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 :)

:-)

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/