Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:55:46 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Patrick Mochel <mochel@digitalimplant.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] request_firmware without a device
Message-ID: <20060525145546.GB1129@kroah.com>
References: <1148529045.32046.102.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> <20060525040134.GA29974@kroah.com> <1148532550.32046.107.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> <1148552781.4734.13.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1148552781.4734.13.camel@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1064
Lines: 27

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 12:26:21PM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Shaohua,
> 
> > > > The patch allows calling request_firmware without a 'struct device'.
> > > > It appears we just need a name here from 'struct device'. I changed it
> > > > to use a kobject as Patrick suggested.
> > > > Next patch will use the new API to request firmware (microcode) for a CPU.
> > > 
> > > But a cpu does have a struct device.  Why not just use that?
> > It's a sysdev, no 'struct device' in it, IIRC.
> 
> do we really need to differentiate between sysdev and device anymore. I
> recall a plan to unify all devices, but I might be wrong.

I don't think we need to keep them different anymore, they should be
made the same.  Then issues like this will not happen.

And it will make your driver code smaller :)

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/