On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 09:12:27AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 04:59:35PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > >> (On that point Greg, what is the reason for even having the > >> /sys/devices/platform/ parent? Why not just let the platform devices > >> sit at the root of the device tree? In the OF case (granted, I'm > >> biased) all of the platform_device registrations reflect the actual > >> device hierarchy expressed in the device tree data.) > > > > If we sat them at the "root", there would be a bunch of them there. I > > don't know, we could drop the parent, I guess whoever created the > > platform device oh so long ago, decided that it would look nicer to be > > in this type of structure. > > Personally I'd rather see a meaningful structure used here. Maybe > having them all in the root will encourage people to find realistic > parents for their platform devices. :-) That would be nice, but take your "standard" PC today: > ls /sys/devices/platform/ Fixed MDIO bus.0 i8042 pcspkr power serial8250 uevent vesafb.0 There are tty devices below the serial port, which is nice to see, but the others? I don't know what type of bus they would be on, do you? > Why don't I float a patch to remove this and see if anybody freaks > out. Should I wrap it with a CONFIG_ so that it can be configurable > for a release or to, or just make it unconditional? If you can figure out a structure for the desktop/server machines, sure, I say just always enable it :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
