On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 07:11:53PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:03:35PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: > > > I'm not a fan of the platform bus but I have mixed feelings about > > creating a dedicated bus type. I guess if we really need a bus > > type we can do it later? > > There was a discussion a while ago in the context of I2C/SPI MFDs > which concluded that if you need a bus and it's going to be effectively > noop then you should just use the platform bus as anything else will > consist almost entirely of cut'n'paste from the platform bus with some > light sed usage and code duplication is bad. It's not super lovely as > it's not actually a memory mapped device but it's the best idea we've > got. Ugh, I hate that. What's wrong with using a "virtual" device instead? I can create a "virtual" bus for things like this if they really want a "simple" bus, abusing platform for this is the major reason I hate the platform bus code... thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
