On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 06:40:04PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 05:19:13PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >>> That being said... If we want user-space to know what device is there, > >>> we may want to still let drivers pass a name string to > >>> als_device_register() and let the ALS core create a "name" sysfs > >>> attribute returning the string in question. This would be much lighter > >>> (for individual drivers) than the previous situation, as the string in > >>> question would be a constant (e.g. "TSL2550".) Opinions? > >>> > >> Makes sense given we want all drivers to support some form of identification. > >> We could do it by stating they will all have that attribute, but given it's constant > >> will save repetition to put it in the driver. Conversely it might complicate the handling > >> of subsequent attribute_groups so I'd probably favour adding relevant documentation lines > >> and leaving it up to the drivers to implement this attribute. > >> > >> Thus we'd require (within reason) all drivers to have illuminance0 and name. > > > > Why have a name attribute when you can just use the name of the device > > itself instead? Isn't that what it is there for? > Could do, though I'm not entirely sure all bus types are implementing a name > attribute (I may be wrong, but I don't think spi does for example though it might > have gone in with the recent device table stuff). We could just specify that it > should be present for the device. ah, sorry, I was thinking of the name of the actual device, which is the bus id here. Nevermind, I'll go back to feeling stupid... greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
