On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 10:20:47AM +0100, Christian Gromm wrote: > On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 09:56:11 +0100 > Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 09:50:12AM +0100, Christian Gromm wrote: > > > 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? > > > > Yes, and starting with cleaning up the kobject mess would be a good > > first item for that list :) > > And what "kobject mess" exactly is it that you're talking about? > The kobjects to hook things up in sysfs? Yes, you should never be using "raw" kobjects in a driver subsystem like this, you should tie into the "real" driver model by being a bus and driver subsystem. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
