Yes, just to clarify I was referring to the sysfs_ops as defined in
sysfs.h (and described in Documentation/filesystems/sysfs.txt).
struct sysfs_ops {
ssize_t (*show)(struct kobject *, struct attribute *,char *);
ssize_t (*store)(struct kobject *,struct attribute *,const char *);
};
However subsystems such as device.h are free to define their own
implementations, as also described in
Documentation/filesystems/sysfs.txt as an example, device.h defines
ssize_t (*show)(struct device * dev, char * buf);
ssize_t (*store)(struct device * dev, const char * buf);
and maps to the sysfs callbacks by the following code:
static ssize_t
dev_attr_show(struct kobject * kobj, struct attribute * attr, char * buf)
{
struct device_attribute * dev_attr = to_dev_attr(attr);
struct device * dev = to_dev(kobj);
ssize_t ret = 0;
if (dev_attr->show)
ret = dev_attr->show(dev,buf);
return ret;
}
So the main problem for people writing sensors is that for some reason
in the device.h implementation of the sysfs callbacks the attribute
parameter was removed, I can only think there is a good reason for this
(does anybody know why?). I suppose one method might be to implement our
own set of callbacks for i2c - but because of the kobject hierarchy (as
far as I can see - I could be wrong) we need to go through the device
implementation to create the proper sysfs directory structure.
Yani
Jean Delvare wrote:
>Greg,
>
>
>
>>Yani Ioannou wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I can't imagine why
>>>the device sysfs callbacks don't pass information on the file they
>>>pertain to, like the base sysfs callbacks, I can only think there
>>>must be a good reason, or something I'm missing.
>>>
>>>
>
>See how I am not the only one complaining about the lack of an
>additional parameter to i2c sysfs callback functions, that would let us
>have a single callback function for several similar sysfs entries, much
>like we were doing in 2.4.
>
>Now that Yani seems to pretend other (non-i2c) sysfs callback functions
>work that way, I am even more confused and really wonder why it was
>decided we would not be able to use that possibility.
>
>
>
