From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: pawel.moll@arm.com (Pawel Moll)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:27:40 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/5] char: tile-srom: Remove reference to platform_bus
In-Reply-To: <5400C9C1.4060904@tilera.com>
References: <1406298233-27876-1-git-send-email-pawel.moll@arm.com>
 <1406298233-27876-2-git-send-email-pawel.moll@arm.com>
 <53DAA605.2030500@tilera.com> <1406913678.22529.46.camel@hornet>
 <53E139C8.9000502@tilera.com> <1407515691.31897.26.camel@hornet>
 <5400C9C1.4060904@tilera.com>
Message-ID: <1409574460.4343.7.camel@hornet>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 19:43 +0100, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> >> Thank you for volunteering to write a bit of code; if that's the best
> >> way to clarify this for us, fantastic, or else pointing us at existing
> >> good practices or documentation would be great too.
> > [...]
> > @@ -350,7 +351,7 @@ static int srom_setup_minor(struct srom_dev *srom, int index)
> >  		       SROM_PAGE_SIZE_OFF, sizeof(srom->page_size)) < 0)
> >  		return -EIO;
> >
> > -	dev = device_create(srom_class, &platform_bus,
> > +	dev = device_create(srom_class, srom_parent,
> >  			    MKDEV(srom_major, index), srom, "%d", index);
> >  	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(dev);
> >  }
> 
> The second argument should be &srom_parent.dev though, I think.  Right?

Yes, sure - as I said, I haven't really tested this code, sorry!


> If the
> consensus is that this is the way to go, I can certainly take this change
> into the Tile tree.

That would be cool, and left us only with the scsi/DMA as the last user
of platform_bus. But this is a completely different story ;-)

Pawe?