[PATCH 2/3] mach-ux500: export System-on-Chip information via sysfs

[skannan@codeaurora.org (Saravana Kannan)]

On 07/13/2011 01:51 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 July 2011 22:32:26 Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 09:40:35AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>> On 07/13/2011 12:55 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> On 12/07/11 17:29, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>>> I initially had it all as part of soc_device_register, but Arnd told me
>>>> to remove it in this patch-set.
>>>>
>>>> See here:
>>>>
>>>> On 17/04/11 19:36, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>>> For the nonstandard attributes, I would recommend having the individual
>>>>> drivers call device_create_file, in order to discourage the use of
>>>>> device specific attribute names.
>>>
>>> Arnd,
>>>
>>> I don't think forcing individual driver to call device_create_file()
>>> is really going to be much of a discouragement.
>>
>> Yes it is as calling that is broken and wrong and userspace will race
>> with the kernel and bad things will happen on the wrong phase of the
>> moon.
>>
>> But again, I never saw the original series to explain why...

Greg,

Your wording was a bit confusing for me (sorry), but it appears that you 
are disagreeing with me. Assuming that to be the case, how will moving a 
couple of lines of code (calls to device_create_file()) from a caller 
function A into caller function B make any functional difference if the 
order of the calls are maintained? The calls to device_create_file() 
will still be done as part of the same call flow/execution flow. I'm 
just asking for code refactoring to avoid repeating the code multiple times.

Thanks,
Saravana

> This is about attributes to the main device that acts as a parent for all
> devices on the SoC, so there is no user space at the time.
>
> IIRC, the original patch was documenting a set of standard attributes and
> letting the SoC specific driver pass a set of static attributes in the
> hope that they do whatever is documented.
>
> In one of my review comments, I asked this to be changed to pass a data
> structure with the actual contents of those attributes and to make
> the implementation common to the soc independent code, in order to
> reduce the amount of code needed in each soc implementation, to enforce
> consistent behavior, and to make it more obvious (and painful) when an
> soc implementation adds a nonstandard attribute.
>
> It seems the final outcome was to have a data structure of function
> pointers to get the attribute contents, which is less nice but still
> acceptable IMHO.
>
> 	Arnd

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.