From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751573AbWDARc5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Apr 2006 12:32:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751575AbWDARc5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Apr 2006 12:32:57 -0500 Received: from smtp109.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.208]:37537 "HELO smtp109.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751573AbWDARc5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Apr 2006 12:32:57 -0500 From: David Brownell To: Alan Stern Subject: Re: Handling devices that don't have a bus Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 09:32:54 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: Russell King , Greg KH , Kernel development list References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200604010932.55104.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 01 April 2006 8:46 am, Alan Stern wrote: > I think you have misunderstood my point. Yes, devices are part of the > platform bus only if they explicitly want to be. My point was that even > though they _do_ want to be on the platform bus, I'm not clear on why it would want to be on the platform bus; what would its inner platform-ness consist of? There really isn't a "bus" that makes much sense for such a singleton device to sit on. > in this situation they > _can't_ because they are forced to register a struct device, not a struct > platform_device. The choice is not up to the driver; it is determined by > the USB Gadget framework.