On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 09:11:17AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 17:46 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:35:54AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 15:19 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:32:29AM +0000, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 10:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:44:56PM +0800, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote: > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > +static void __exit efi_capsule_loader_exit(void) > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > + platform_device_unregister(efi_capsule_pdev); > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not a platform device, don't abuse that interface please. > > > > > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > > Okay, so you would recommend to use device_register() for this case? > > > > > Or you would think that this is more suitable to use class_register()? > > > > > > > > A class isn't needed, you just want a device right? So just use a > > > > device, but not a platform device, as that isn't what you have here. > > > > > > Coming back to this, am I the only one confused here? What is a > > > 'platform device' then? Because if it doesn't fit a direct channel to > > > the platform firmware, which seems to be one of the definitions covered > > > in driver-model/platform.txt under devices with minimal infrastructure > > > then perhaps the documentation needs updating. > > > > I don't remember the original code here at all, sorry. I'm guessing > > that they were using a class, and a platform device together, which is > > not a good idea. Just make a "virtual" device, as you don't need/want > > any of the platform device infrastructure here, you just wanted a device > > node and/or a way to show up in sysfs somewhere. > > It was a platform device called efi_platform_loader and a single > attribute file in that device called capsule_load. I agree that if > we're going to use this for other things, we should probably have a uefi > directory somewhere (under firmware?) to collect everything together > rather than spraying random devices around. > > > If you have some kind of "platform resource", then you can be a platform > > device, otherwise please don't use that api just because it seems simple > > to use. Use the ones the driver core provides for you that really are > > just as simple (i.e. device_create()). > > OK, so this is what I'm trying to understand. Why isn't a pipe to > firmware for something a "platform resource"? I think UEFI is in the > same class as ACPI which uses platform devices all over. And I hate the fact that ACPI did that, but that ship has sailed a long time ago. It "should" have been it's own bus and device type, but oh well. For a "simple" bus-less device, that has no platform resources needed (i.e from acpi or device tree), so you don't need the infrastructure from the platform core, just use a simple device_create() call, that's what it is there for. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
