On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 08:00:57 +0100 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:48:32PM -0700, Jason Litzinger wrote: > > > This is fine, but the fact that the most subsystem feels like it has to > > > have its own attribute type is the big problem with this file, that > > > should not be needed at all, and hopefully will be fixed up someday soon > > > (i.e. it's a requirement before it can get out of staging...) That's interesting. We still need to set up a strategy to get this driver out of staging one day, as we decided on the ELCE 2015 in Dublin. A good starting point would be a list of requirements that need to be met to achieve this goal. Does this make sense? > > Ok, couple follow up questions. > > > > Something like struct device/DEVICE_ATTR_* (or something that exists > > already) to expose the same functionality? > > Yes, that is correct. > > > I'm happy to iterate patches to address this, but, Christian, do you already > > have a plan/patchset in the works? I haven't come across a prior > > discussion of this in the mailing list, but I may have missed it in my > > search. Yes, we do have plans to fix this up. I'm just not sure _when_ we are going to send in patches for this. > > It's a non-trivial change, and it requires you to understand the driver > model code a bunch to make a new bus type and register devices to it. > If you have questions about it, let me know. > > good luck! > > greg k-h regards, Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
