On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 10:40:17AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Where I've used the symlink approach in the past, it has always
> been about keeping a legacy interface in place, not where I'd start
> with something new. Hence I think this is a question of how far
> we 'breakaway' from existing edac structure.
Yes, since we're designing this anew, we can do whatever we prefer. So
let's do the standard driver model stuff.
However, there's also /sys/devices/system/edac/ so I don't know what the
right thing to do there is. Are we supposed to put everything under
/sys/bus/edac now and /sys/devices/system/edac is wrong now and should
go away? Maybe we should talk to Greg first ... :)
> This suggests the second option above, but I wanted to confirm as Shiju
> and I read this differently.
As said, we wanna do the new correct way of how a sysfs interface should
look and leave the old one as it is.
> Ok. There is an existing is the minimal sysfs existing interface but I'm
> fine with ignoring it for now.
Yes, we don't know who's even using it and why. That's why I'm very
interested in how this new thing is going to be used so that we know
what we're committing to supporting forever.
> *much sympathy!* As we ramp up more on this stuff, we'll try and
> help out where we can.
Always appreciated! :-)
> Hopefully we all agree on a unified solution being the target.
>
> Feels like we are converging. Now we are down to the details :)
Yap.
Thanks!
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
