From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
To: dedekind@infradead.org
Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>,
Linux MTD <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 2.6.29 2/2] MTD: support driver model updates
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:57:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200903312257.37434.david-b@pacbell.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1238564771.20906.26.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Tuesday 31 March 2009, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand.c
> > @@ -866,6 +866,7 @@ static int __init mxcnd_probe(struct pla
> > mtd = &host->mtd;
> > mtd->priv = this;
> > mtd->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> > + mtd->dev.parent = &pdev->dev;
>
> Could this be done for all NANDs in nand_base.c instead?
By adding the device as a parameter to nand_scan(),
and presumably nand_scan_ident() ... which is a more
invasive API change, and would require a "flag day"
to convert all drivers.
My default assumption for API changes is to avoid
flag days. They can be done, yes, but I don't see
a compelling reason to choose one here.
- Dave
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
To: dedekind@infradead.org
Cc: Linux MTD <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 2.6.29 2/2] MTD: support driver model updates
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:57:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200903312257.37434.david-b@pacbell.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1238564771.20906.26.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Tuesday 31 March 2009, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand.c
> > @@ -866,6 +866,7 @@ static int __init mxcnd_probe(struct pla
> > mtd = &host->mtd;
> > mtd->priv = this;
> > mtd->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> > + mtd->dev.parent = &pdev->dev;
>
> Could this be done for all NANDs in nand_base.c instead?
By adding the device as a parameter to nand_scan(),
and presumably nand_scan_ident() ... which is a more
invasive API change, and would require a "flag day"
to convert all drivers.
My default assumption for API changes is to avoid
flag days. They can be done, yes, but I don't see
a compelling reason to choose one here.
- Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-01 6:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200903260039.34013.david-b@pacbell.net>
2009-03-26 7:42 ` [patch/rfc 2.6.29 2/2] MTD: support driver model updates David Brownell
2009-04-01 5:46 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2009-04-01 5:46 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2009-04-01 5:57 ` David Brownell [this message]
2009-04-01 5:57 ` David Brownell
2009-04-01 6:10 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2009-04-01 6:10 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2009-04-01 6:42 ` David Brownell
2009-04-01 6:42 ` David Brownell
2009-04-01 6:48 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2009-04-01 6:48 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2009-04-01 6:08 ` Vitaly Wool
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200903312257.37434.david-b@pacbell.net \
--to=david-b@pacbell.net \
--cc=dedekind@infradead.org \
--cc=kay.sievers@vrfy.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.