On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 04:39:47PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, Mark Brown wrote: > > The device in this context is a running instance of the driver. > It's kind of difficult to understand what you're saying. Obviously the > literal meaning is not what you had in mind, because a device can't be > a driver (or even a running instance of a driver). Maybe you meant > that the word "device" above should have been the word "driver". I don't think using device to refer to an instance of the running driver is that obscure a usage to be honest... > So you seem to be saying that significant modifications would be needed > to get platform information to the driver. I don't see why. Lots and > lots of drivers use platform information right now. > Besides, you need to get the platform information to the driver in any > case, no matter how you decide to solve the chicken-and-egg problem. > It shouldn't be a factor in deciding which solution to use. It's not that this is hard, it's that I don't see how if you already have some concept of the device in the kernel data structures (which you must have in order to be able to provide platform data when it's needed) anything is gained by not using that when dealing with bootstrapping issues. Anyway, I think it's time to try to implement something rather than talk about it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
