From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] staging: ion: create one device entry per heap Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:44:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20171102104407.GA14048@kroah.com> References: <1508774137-13835-1-git-send-email-benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org> <1508774137-13835-3-git-send-email-benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org> <3e3af8e3-76c5-754c-caaa-3f8c9b54723f@redhat.com> <20171031191153.avolosp6n5gb3xao@sirena.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171031191153.avolosp6n5gb3xao@sirena.co.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Laura Abbott , Benjamin Gaignard , sumit.semwal@linaro.org, arve@android.com, riandrews@android.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 07:11:53PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:03:35PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: > > > I'm not a fan of the platform bus but I have mixed feelings about > > creating a dedicated bus type. I guess if we really need a bus > > type we can do it later? > > There was a discussion a while ago in the context of I2C/SPI MFDs > which concluded that if you need a bus and it's going to be effectively > noop then you should just use the platform bus as anything else will > consist almost entirely of cut'n'paste from the platform bus with some > light sed usage and code duplication is bad. It's not super lovely as > it's not actually a memory mapped device but it's the best idea we've > got. Ugh, I hate that. What's wrong with using a "virtual" device instead? I can create a "virtual" bus for things like this if they really want a "simple" bus, abusing platform for this is the major reason I hate the platform bus code... thanks, greg k-h