Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755153AbYBEGuy (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 01:50:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752268AbYBEGuq (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 01:50:46 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:55664 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752108AbYBEGup (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 01:50:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:45:47 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Jean Delvare Cc: greg@kroah.com, markus.rechberger@amd.com, "Matt_Domsch@dell.com" , Jos?? Luis Tall??n , "Douglas_Warzecha@dell.com" , "Abhay_Salunke@dell.com" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michael E Brown Subject: Re: FW: 2.6.24 breaks BIOS updates on all Dell machines Message-ID: <20080205064547.GA20384@suse.de> References: <20080129184129.GA23681@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1421 Lines: 32 On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:15:22PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > >So, I'm all for reverting this patch. > > > >And then, feel free to revisit the problem by proposing something that > >doesn't break existing users of the interface. > > I'm a bit confused. It seems to me that the "class devices" are named > differently in recent kernels. The i2c-dev class devices were originally > showing as i2c-%d in their parent device directories (causing the > collision), and now show as i2c-dev:i2c-%d. This suggests that the > collision the patch above was trying to solve is in fact already fixed > (by prefixing the device name with the class name). The good news is > that it would mean that we can just revert the patch in question... > > But quite frankly I'm not really sure, the class devices look different > on every kernel I looked at, depending on the version and whether > CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED is set or not. THe naming is different depending on that sysfs variable, yes. But it should be consistant other than that. If not, please let me know. And yes, we did have to add the ":" a while ago to handle the namespace collisions we were having. 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/