Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751548AbWCBPjy (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:39:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751549AbWCBPjy (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:39:54 -0500 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:46865 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751548AbWCBPjx (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:39:53 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:39:45 +0000 From: Russell King To: Kumar Gala Cc: Greg KH , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: what's a platform device? Message-ID: <20060302153945.GA28895@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Kumar Gala , Greg KH , Linux Kernel References: <8B3A62DF-6991-4C46-A294-6DF314D24AF4@kernel.crashing.org> <20060224014251.GC25787@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1982 Lines: 52 On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:25:52PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > >>>This makes sense, but you seem to be talking about hierarchy more > >>>the > >>>functionality. I agree in your description of hierarchy. > >>> > >>>I was looking at it from a functional point of view, maybe more from > >>>the device view then from the bus. I need a struct device type that > >>>contains resources, a name, an id. I'll do matching based on name. > >>> From a functional point of view platform does all this. > >>> > >>>Based on your description would you say that a platform_device's > >>>parent device should always be platform_bus? [I'm getting at the > >>>fact > >>>that we allow pdev->dev.parent to be set by the caller of > >>>platform_device_add]. > >>> > >>>Hmm, as I think about this further, I think that its more > >>>coincidence > >>>that the functionality for the "kumar" bus is equivalent to that of > >>>the "platform" bus. > >>> > >> > >>What about a new bus_type that uses all the sematics of the > >>platform_bus. > >>Doing someting like the following which would allow the caller to > >>specify > >>their own bus_type. > >> > >>I'm just trying to avoid duplicating alot of code that already > >>exists in > >>base/platform.c > > > >I'm ok with this patch, Russell? > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=114072367307531&w=2 > > Russell, comments? No particular opinion on this, other than maybe we want to move the dev.bus/driver.bus initialisation out of these functions and inline or something like that - just so there's some distinction between real platform devices and these other types. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/