On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:04:40PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 08:31:24PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: <snip> > > This doesn't apply anymore, due to other changes recently to this > driver. > > But even if it did, I don't think it is correct. I really don't > understand what you are trying to do here. I think you just merged two > different major numbers togther, which isn't good at all. But if you > didn't, then why is this patch doing different things to different files > (hint, only do one thing per file.) > > Also, why does the driver have multiple major numbers? Isn't a single > major good enough? How many does it need? For what does it use them > for? but, according to my understanding the driver is having only one major number. visorchipset_major is the major number defined in visorchipset_main.c as a module parameter. The original code in visorchipset_main.c was creating dev_t from this major number and calling the function visorchipset_file_init(), which is in file.c with the dev_t as an argument. Now visorchipset_file_init(), it is registering that dev_t as a char driver and storing it in a static variable so that it can reuse that dev_t in visorchipset_file_cleanup(). My patch is just passing the major and minor number as argument to visorchipset_file_init() which is creating that dev_t while registering. and instead of storing it again as a static variable i am using Visorchipset_platform_device.dev.devt while calling the cleanup(). now since all are related to only one change so it all came in a single patch. is my understanding correct or am i missing something here? regards sudip > > Totally confused, > > greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
