On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 19:43 +0100, Chris Metcalf wrote: > >> Thank you for volunteering to write a bit of code; if that's the best > >> way to clarify this for us, fantastic, or else pointing us at existing > >> good practices or documentation would be great too. > > [...] > > @@ -350,7 +351,7 @@ static int srom_setup_minor(struct srom_dev *srom, int index) > > SROM_PAGE_SIZE_OFF, sizeof(srom->page_size)) < 0) > > return -EIO; > > > > - dev = device_create(srom_class, &platform_bus, > > + dev = device_create(srom_class, srom_parent, > > MKDEV(srom_major, index), srom, "%d", index); > > return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(dev); > > } > > The second argument should be &srom_parent.dev though, I think. Right? Yes, sure - as I said, I haven't really tested this code, sorry! > If the > consensus is that this is the way to go, I can certainly take this change > into the Tile tree. That would be cool, and left us only with the scsi/DMA as the last user of platform_bus. But this is a completely different story ;-) Paweł -- 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
