On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 02:41:54PM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 09:17:41AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > > <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Grant Likely wrote: > > >>> > > >>> --- a/drivers/base/platform.c > > >>> +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c > > >>> @@ -614,7 +614,7 @@ static int platform_uevent(struct device *dev, struct > > >>> kobj_uevent_env *env) > > >>> return rc; > > >>> > > >>> add_uevent_var(env, "MODALIAS=%s%s", PLATFORM_MODULE_PREFIX, > > >>> - (pdev->id_entry) ? pdev->id_entry->name : pdev->name); > > >>> + pdev->name); > > >> > > >> Yes, this looks like the right thing to do to me. Also, I think the > > >> original code is suspect because it causes the uevent data to be > > >> different after binding a driver to a device. > > > > > > Why different? The code matches (pdev->name == id->name) or > > > (pdev->name == driver->name) so in both cases it should be equal to > > > pdev->name. > > > > > > Are you or Greg taking this? > > > > This one is all Greg. > > Greg, do you want to take this patch through your driver core tree, or > would you prefer to have it come through the xHCI tree? I'll take it in my driver-core tree separate, as the others don't depend on this one, right? greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
