Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/4]device core changes

Li Shaohua
2004-11-11T08:46:42Z

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 16:44, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 03:03:33PM +0800, Li Shaohua wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 12:28, Russell King wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 09:45:37AM +0800, Li Shaohua wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 09:24, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > Maybe your other patches weren't so bad... If we implement them, can we
> > > > > drop the platform notify stuff?
> > > > Currently only ARM use 'platform_notify', and we can easily convert it
> > > > to use per-bus 'platform_bind'. One concern of per-bus 'platform_bind'
> > > > is we will have many '#ifdef ..' if many platforms implement their
> > > > per-bus 'platform_bind'.
> > >
> > > Except none of the merged ARM platforms use platform_notify, and I haven't
> > > seen any suggestion in the ARM world of why it would be needed.
> > Ok, let me summarize it. we now have two options:
> > 1. using 'platform_notify'
> > platform_notify only has one parameter 'struct device', we must know the
> > exact bus type of a device. We can identify the bus type from its name
> > (such as 'pci', 'ide'), but it's quite some ugly. Or we can add a 'type'
> > flag in the 'struct bus_type' to indicate the exact bus type which Greg
> > doesn't like it. One shortcoming is the method hasn't good flexibility,
> > we must add a new type whenever a new bus type is added.
>
> Is there something wrong with doing dev->bus == &pci_bus_type for
> example?
It can't work if the bus type is in a loadable module.