On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 Kiran Kumar Immidi wrote : > > I dont know how to communicate my concern. I can't digest how come > > MAJOR NUMBER identifies the driver rather than the device type as I > > Hmm.. I have been watching this for a while. I thought I do have a possible >answer to your question. Whenever there are cases like the one you spoke of >(the video0 and video1 stuff), the drivers would not possibly register a >major device number (the stuff of char and block numbers is quite irrelevant >to this discussion), but would register to another interface. > > For eg, all of USB devices have major number 180, this is registered by >usbcore (drivers/usb/file.c). The other USB drivers for various devices would >only use the interface usb_register(), or whatever to register their own >drivers with the subsystem, and NOT register a major number again. > > I guess a similar thing holds for other 'groups' of devices. > >-- >Regards, >Kiran Kumar Immidi I think you are right, becuse we have similar thing in case of MTD devices case also. We basically register mtd-block or mtd-char device driver and then using inter_module_register() and inter_module_unregister() calls just fills up a table which is then referred by mtdblock or mtdchar drivers as and when that device is accessed... Thanks. Sumit Sharma, IBM, Bangalore. >
