[PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: maintain a generic child device for each rproc
From: Stephen Boyd <hidden>
Date: 2012-06-04 21:22:50
Also in:
linux-omap, lkml
(Sorry your mail was lost due to mail outage) On 05/30/12 05:16, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Stephen Boyd [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
One complaint I've gotten is that the error messages are essentially useless now. I believe there are some ongoing discussions on lkml to fix this by traversing the device hierarchy to find the "real" device but the hard part is finding the real device.You probably refer to the discussions around the input subsystem's pull request. I was thinking about that too when creating this patch, and it looks like whatever Greg will come up with on that matter will benefit us too. So taking that into account, it might make more sense to do stick with the virtual device rather than use the real one here (we'll end up having more information in the long run).
Fair enough. Hopefully something comes out of that discussion since this will need it.
quoted
I'm not clear on busses versus classes.I think that busses is a whole lot more complex beast. Probably the main indication we want one is when we need to match drivers to devices. In this case, I was more wondering between using a class to a device type.quoted
I recall seeing a thread where someone said classes were on the way out and shouldn't be used but I can't find it anymore.I also remembered a similar discussion at a plumbers mini-conf about 2-3 years ago too, so I looked at device_type as an alternative to class. The former looks somewhat simpler, but I couldn't find any major advantage for using one over the other, and both seem to be in use by many subsystems.quoted
Should we use classes for devices that will never have a matching driver?It's not strictly required, but in case we want to provide these devices some common behavior (and in our case we want them all to have the same release handler, and very soon, the same PM handlers, too), then a class (or a type) is helpful. It looks like moving from a class to a type is quite trivial, in case classes do eventually go away (or an advantage of using the latter shows up), but I'm not aware of any other viable alternative for us other than class/type.
Ok. Will moving from a class to a device type disrupt the kernel ABI? First it will be under /sys/class/ and then under /sys/bus? Greg, can you shed some light on when to use a class versus a device type? -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.