From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcel Holtmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Drop platform sysfs support Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:54:45 -0700 Message-ID: <1250589285.5150.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4A89E76B.5070204@dell.com> <9b2b86520908180143t4b25c1f7hd78cd4b4333c4ab4@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from senator.holtmann.net ([87.106.208.187]:59734 "EHLO mail.holtmann.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758050AbZHRJzR (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:55:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <9b2b86520908180143t4b25c1f7hd78cd4b4333c4ab4@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Jenkins Cc: Mario Limonciello , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cezary.jackiewicz@gmail.com Hi Alan, > > With rfkill support being added, the platform support is no longer > > necessary. Standard rfkill interfaces can be used to administer the box > > now. > > -- > > Mario Limonciello > > *Dell | Linux Engineering* > > mario_limonciello@dell.com > > > > -static struct platform_device *compal_device; > > I don't think this is the right way to go. I don't object to removing > the sysfs attributes, but the platform device can still be useful as a > parent device to the rfkill and backlight devices. (See my earlier > comment on the use of rfkill_allocate()). > > In practice I suspect it makes no difference that the rfkill and > backlight devices are exported as virtual devices with no physical > parent. I just don't think it's "right" :-). it actually does make a difference for hardware detection. We wanna have them hanging of the compal platform device. Regards Marcel