Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190116175804.30196-1-keith.busch@intel.com> <20190116175804.30196-6-keith.busch@intel.com>
 <CAJZ5v0jmkyrNBHzqHsOuWjLXF34tq83VnEhdBWrdFqxyiXC=cw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPcyv4gH0_e_NFJNOFH4XXarSs7+TOj4nT0r-D33ZGNCfqBdxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190119090129.GC10836@kroah.com> <CAJZ5v0jxuLPUvwr-hYstgC-7BKDwqkJpep94rnnUFvFhKG4W3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190122163650.GD1477@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20190122163650.GD1477@localhost.localdomain>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:51:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0ggO9DePeYJkEoZ-ymB5VQywBgTnsGBo4WPHD5_JrjKRA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 05/13] Documentation/ABI: Add new node sysfs attributes
To:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 5:37 PM Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 05:16:05PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 10:01 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you do a subdirectory "correctly" (i.e. a name for an attribute
> > > group), that's fine.
> >
> > Yes, that's what I was thinking about: along the lines of the "power"
> > group under device kobjects.
>
> We can't append symlinks to an attribute group, though.

That's right, unfortunately.

> I'd need to create a lot of struct devices just to get the desired directory hiearchy.

No, you don't need to do that.  Kobjects can be added without
registering a struct device for each of them kind of along the lines
of what cpufreq does for its policy objects etc.  See
cpufreq_policy_alloc() and cpufreq_core_init() for examples.

> And then each of those "devices" will have their own "power" group, which
> really doesn't make any sense for what we're trying to show. Is that
> really the right way to do this, or something else I'm missing?

Above?