On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:30:50AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 10:21:56PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:32:44AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:43:03AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 11:25:25PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > > > Eww. Do you really want one struct device per tty with all the > > > > > memory each one eats? > > > > > > > > > > If that's really what you want you need to talk to Alan and not me. > > > > > Alan looks after tty level stuff, I look after serial level stuff. > > > > > The above is a tty level issue not a serial level issue. > > > > > > > > mmm. I don't know whether it's really a tty level issue or a serial > > > > issue. The only tty classes with corresponding devices are the serial > > > > ones, at least on my system. If this is the case, then the right fix > > > > would seem to be something like creating a new struct device for each > > > > serial port, then making that the uart_port->dev instead of the pci_dev > > > > or whatever. > > > > > > What's the reason for enforcing one struct device per struct class_dev ? > > > I thought one of the points of class_dev was that you could have multiple > > > of them per struct device. > > > > No such enforcement is needed at all, and not encouraged. > > The complaint is that serial is registering several different class_devs > for the same class and device. That's because they are unique class devices, right? I don't see a problem here at all. > So that's precisely what is being done by adding the symlink as per this > sub-thread. Ok, I think I'm just confused and I'll drop this now :) thanks, greg k-h - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
