On Thursday 04 December 2014 10:30:36 Pankaj Dubey wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 03 December 2014 13:47:37 Pankaj Dubey wrote: > > > >> + soc_dev_attr->soc_id = exynos_product_id_to_name(soc_product_id); > >> + > >> + soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr); > >> + if (IS_ERR(soc_dev)) > >> + goto free_rev; > >> + > >> + device_create_file(soc_device_to_device(soc_dev), &exynos_product_attr); > >> + device_create_file(soc_device_to_device(soc_dev), > >> + &exynos_main_rev_attr); > >> + device_create_file(soc_device_to_device(soc_dev), &exynos_sub_rev_attr); > >> + > > > > I don't like the idea of having three extra nonstandard properties here, > > especially when you are not using the machine field for anything useful. > > > > I did not get you here. Any suggestions how we can use 'machine' field > more useful way. For instance you could pass the exynos_product_id_to_name() result to the machine field instead of the soc_id field, and use the soc_id for a more fine-grained distinction. > > Also, all three of these just come from the same register, why expose > > them all as the machine and revision standard properties. > > > > Agreed. These properties are basically giving same information but with > small modification. > As you said these are getting exposed via standard properties as well, > so I have no issue to drop them. Just waiting for more review from > Samsung folks, will take care of this in next version. Ok. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |