From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:26:41 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Mark Brown Cc: michael.hennerich@analog.com, jic23@cam.ac.uk, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, drivers@analog.com, device-drivers-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] IIO: TRIGGER: New sysfs based trigger Message-ID: <20110202202641.GA28479@kroah.com> References: <1296674468-24251-1-git-send-email-michael.hennerich@analog.com> <20110202194318.GB27065@kroah.com> <20110202195001.GH9810@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20110202195001.GH9810@sirena.org.uk> List-ID: On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 07:50:01PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 11:43:18AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 08:21:08PM +0100, michael.hennerich@analog.com wrote: > > > > +static struct platform_driver iio_sysfs_trigger_driver = { > > > + .driver = { > > > + .name = "iio_sysfs_trigger", > > > + .owner = THIS_MODULE, > > > + }, > > > + .probe = iio_sysfs_trigger_probe, > > > + .remove = __devexit_p(iio_sysfs_trigger_remove), > > > +}; > > > Why is this a platform device? It doesn't seem to be platform specific > > at all, does it? > > Platform devices are used throughout the embedded kernel for virtual > devices Yes, but that doesn't mean they should be. > - the MFD subsystem is one of the most obvious examples here. Don't make a device a "platform" device unless it really is one. This one isn't one, it's a "virtual" device, right? thanks, greg k-h