From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv2 1/2] Export SoC info through sysfs Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:03:33 -0800 Message-ID: <20110311220333.GA30232@kroah.com> References: <1299846911-15782-1-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin-nonst@stericsson.com> <20110311175816.GC7291@besouro.research.nokia.com> <20110311193330.GA14204@kroah.com> <201103112242.43962.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201103112242.43962.arnd@arndb.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: ext Nishanth Menon , ext Tony Lindgren , Peter De-Schrijver , Linus Walleij , Ambresh , Saravana Kannan , Jouni Hogander , Lee Jones , Rabin VINCENT , Russell King , Jonas ABERG , ext Kevin Hilman , David Brown , Maxime Coquelin , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , Loic PALLARDY , Eduardo Valentin , maxime_coquelin@yahoo.fr, Ryan Mallon , Linux-OMAP , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.orgD List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:42:43PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 11 March 2011 20:33:30 Greg KH wrote: > > Make this a "real" device not /sys/socinfo please. It can be a platform > > device that export the needed information, that way you can have > > multiple ones. > > Note that the version 1 of this patch had a device, and I argued against > that patch on the basis that anything under /sys/devices/ should > reflect an actual part of the hardware, which socinfo by itself > does not. Why is the overall SoC not a device? cpus are (well, they will be in a few kernel versions in the future), so what makes the other bits somehow "special"? > I believe the best way to represent this really is to have > a device (platform or other, I don't care) that: > > * represents the SOC in its entirety > * has the subdevices that are part of the SOC as direct > or indirect children > * can be identified easily as a SOC (through one of > its name, its place in the hierarchy or its bus_type) > * has the standard device attributes proposed in Maxime's > patch. That's fine, as it would be a real "struct device" :) thanks, greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: greg@kroah.com (Greg KH) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:03:33 -0800 Subject: [RFC PATCHv2 1/2] Export SoC info through sysfs In-Reply-To: <201103112242.43962.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1299846911-15782-1-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin-nonst@stericsson.com> <20110311175816.GC7291@besouro.research.nokia.com> <20110311193330.GA14204@kroah.com> <201103112242.43962.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20110311220333.GA30232@kroah.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:42:43PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 11 March 2011 20:33:30 Greg KH wrote: > > Make this a "real" device not /sys/socinfo please. It can be a platform > > device that export the needed information, that way you can have > > multiple ones. > > Note that the version 1 of this patch had a device, and I argued against > that patch on the basis that anything under /sys/devices/ should > reflect an actual part of the hardware, which socinfo by itself > does not. Why is the overall SoC not a device? cpus are (well, they will be in a few kernel versions in the future), so what makes the other bits somehow "special"? > I believe the best way to represent this really is to have > a device (platform or other, I don't care) that: > > * represents the SOC in its entirety > * has the subdevices that are part of the SOC as direct > or indirect children > * can be identified easily as a SOC (through one of > its name, its place in the hierarchy or its bus_type) > * has the standard device attributes proposed in Maxime's > patch. That's fine, as it would be a real "struct device" :) thanks, greg k-h