On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 16:02, Jean Delvare<khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:04:48 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: >> + return sysfs_remove_link(cls->kobj, dev_name(dev)); > > I don't think you need the "return" here, as sysfs_remove_link returns > void. Fixed. Thanks. > Other than that (and in practice even with that) your patch works just > fine for me. Thanks! Unfortunately it doesn't provide perfect > compatibility, [...] to add this device link (pointing to "..") temporarily > or would that be too confusing? I think that's ok, if it solves a real problem. The entire idea of _a_ "device" link is pretty flawed, and the reason we ripped all the "struct class_device" devices out. > Another thing we have to discuss is the compatibility option. For now > I've made it i2c-specific and enabled by default: > > config I2C_COMPAT > boolean "Enable compatibility bits for old user-space" > default y > help > Say Y here if you intend to run lm-sensors 3.1.1 or older. > > But this means a lot of ifdefs in my code (6). With a system-wide > option, we could provide empty stubs I could get rid of them. OTOH, It > is easier to control the lifetime, and change the default value, of a > subsystem specific option. So I'm not too sure what do to. I'm not sure too. I think it's fine to have it per-subsytem, as only the subsystem knows for how long it is needed, and it can probably be dropped some day. > Maybe it > depends on how many subsystems will need the compatibility layer... Do > you have an opinion? I don't know of any other subsytem needing that, I've seen some just moving things around without taking care about that. :) Thanks, Kay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
