On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:15:00AM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> > On Oct 21, 2015, at 00:08 , Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:13:16PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> >> * A per overlay can_remove sysfs attribute that reports whether
> >> the overlay can be removed or not due to another overlapping overlay.
> >>
> >> * A target sysfs attribute listing the target of each fragment,
> >> in a group named after the name of the fragment.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/of/overlay.c | 103 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c
> >> index 067404e..2d51d9e2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c
> >> @@ -25,8 +25,23 @@
> >>
> >> #include "of_private.h"
> >>
> >> +/* fwd. decl */
> >> +struct of_overlay;
> >> +struct of_overlay_info;
> >> +
> >> +/* an attribute for each fragment */
> >> +struct fragment_attribute {
> >> + struct attribute attr;
> >> + ssize_t (*show)(struct kobject *kobj, struct fragment_attribute *fattr,
> >> + char *buf);
> >> + ssize_t (*store)(struct kobject *kobj, struct fragment_attribute *fattr,
> >> + const char *buf, size_t count);
> >> + struct of_overlay_info *ovinfo;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> /**
> >> * struct of_overlay_info - Holds a single overlay info
> >> + * @info: info node that contains the target and overlay
> >> * @target: target of the overlay operation
> >> * @overlay: pointer to the overlay contents node
> >> *
> >> @@ -34,8 +49,13 @@
> >> * records.
> >> */
> >> struct of_overlay_info {
> >> + struct of_overlay *ov;
> >> + struct device_node *info;
> >> struct device_node *target;
> >> struct device_node *overlay;
> >> + struct attribute_group attr_group;
> >> + struct attribute *attrs[2];
> >
> > Why both 2 attributes _and_ an attribute group? Why not put the
> > attributes in the attribute group?
> >
> > And why just one attribute group? Why not an array of them like the
> > rest of the kernel is used to handle?
> >
>
> Because this makes it easier to add all the attributes for all the fragments in a single
> sysfs_create_groups() call, once for each overlay, instead of having a call to
> sysfs_create_group() for each fragment of the overlay.
>
> Reusing driver core helpers is good, no?
Yes it is, sorry, I missed how you used these later on, and the
attribute_groups usage there, nice job, sorry for the noise.
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
