On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 04:24:37PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > On 7/25/2014 10:23 AM, Pawel Moll wrote: > >The code was creating "srom" class devices using > >platform_bus as a parent. As they are not really > >platform devices, make them virtual, using NULL instead. > > > >Cc: Chris Metcalf<cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> > >Signed-off-by: Pawel Moll<pawel.moll@xxxxxxx> > >--- > > drivers/char/tile-srom.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Can you clarify the point of this change a bit? The SROM devices > in question are real devices (bits of silicon on the processor die), not > some kind of virtual construct. Then tie them to the "real" parent device that they live on, don't try to hang them under the platform bus where they don't belong. > In addition, we also have user binaries in the wild that know to look > for /sys/devices/platform/srom/ paths, That's never a good idea, you should be iterating over your bus's devices, to find your devices, not at a specific location within the /sys/devices/ tree, as that is guaranteed to move around over time. It's also why we have those symlinks and lists of devices in your bus directory. > so I'm pretty reluctant to change this path without good reason. Because srom is not a platform device, so why would you put it at the root of the platform device "tree"? thanks, greg kh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
