Hi, On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 05:15:35PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > First off, why is a single driver doing so many odd things with > attribute groups? Why not just use them the way that the rest of the > kernel does? Why does this driver need this special handling and no one > else does? Is [1] the correct way to deal with devices attributes? I think so. [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/driver-model/driver.html#attributes > > I think the default way of handling if an attribute is enabled or not, > should suffice here, and make things much simpler overall as all of this > crazy attribute handling can just be removed. Sorry but what is the default way? Would it be correct to check if the file exists? > > Bonus would also be that I think it would fix the race conditions that > happen when trying to create attributes after the device is bound to the > driver that I think the existing driver has today. > > > > (I see the caller uses +2? Why? It seems to be using each of hotkey_attributes, > > > plus 1 more attr, plus a final NULL?) > > > > The +2 is actually for 2 extra attributes (making the total number > > of extra attributes +3 because the sizeof(struct attribute_set_obj) > > already includes 1 extra). > > > > FWIW these 2 extra attributes are for devices with a > > a physical rfkill on/off switch and for the device being > > a convertible capable of reporting laptop- vs tablet-mode. > > Again, using the default way to show (or not show) attributes should > solve this issue. Why not just use that instead? What is the default way? Would it be correct to use device_create_file() and device_remove_file()? Sorry if it is a trivial question but I am a kernel newbie :) I have a lot to learn. Any suggestion or a good driver to look at would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Len
