On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? >> 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
