On 11/27/2012 05:07 AM, the mail apparently from Alan Stern included:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Greg KH wrote:
Ah, here's the root of your problem, right? You need a way for your
hardware to tell the kernel that you have a regulator attached to a
specific device? Using the device path and hard-coding it into the
kernel is not the proper way to solve this, sorry. Use some other
unique way to describe the hardware, surely the hardware designers
couldn't have been that foolish not to provide this [1]?
As far as I know, the kernel has no other way to describe devices.
What about using partial matches? In this example, instead of doing a
wildcard match against
/platform/usbhs_omap/ehci-omap.0/usb*
(which would fail if the "platform" part of the path changes), suppose
the string "ehci-omap.0/usb*" could be associated with the usbhs_omap
component somehow. Or even better, the string "usb*" could be
associated with the ehci-omap.0 device.
Then the path-matching code could restrict its attention to that part
of the path and to devices below the specified one. Naming changes
wouldn't be an issue, because the changes themselves would be made in
the same source file that contains the partial path string.
Yes just dropping the starting / on the match and allowing a fragment to
match further up the string would solve it. ehci-omap.0 won't appear
down any other earlier device paths than the right one.
On the other hand, this may be way more general than we really need.
For this particular case, all we need to do is take special action the
first time any device is registered below the ehci-omap.0 platform
device. There ought to be a more direct way to accomplish this,
without using string pattern-matching or sysfs pathnames (and without
adding overhead every time a device is added or deleted).
There are no sysfs pathnames involved here at all. Greg invented that.
I don't know if such an approach would be sufficiently general for
future requirements, but it would solve the problem at hand.
We can get a notification about device creation and do things there.
But the cost of that is like the tuple suggestion, they'll only be able
to do a fixed thing like operate on regulators.
Actually the targeted device may have arbitrary associated assets like
generic GPIO to turn on a "flash" for built-in webcam controlled
out-of-band. These also can be reached by known names. And the driver
may wish to do things with them that are more complex than enable /
disable or follow logical lifecycle of the hub or whatever.
However when the guidance from Greg is that we can do nothing except
complain at hardware designers for some reason I failed to quite
identify, I fear we are moving deckchairs on the titanic.
-Andy
--
Andy Green | TI Landing Team Leader
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs | Follow Linaro
http://facebook.com/pages/Linaro/155974581091106 -
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://linaro.org/linaro-blog
--
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
