From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: Strange location and name for platform devices when device-tree is used. Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 07:33:21 +1100 Message-ID: <1383338001.28909.42.camel@pasglop> References: <20131101145925.66e22f73@notabene.brown> <1383279744.28909.26.camel@pasglop> <1383280054.28909.30.camel@pasglop> <20131101160329.37f3707b@notabene.brown> <1383282516.28909.36.camel@pasglop> <20131101180459.81793C40A28@trevor.secretlab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131101180459.81793C40A28@trevor.secretlab.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Grant Likely Cc: NeilBrown , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Rob Herring , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lkml List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 11:04 -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > There are two problems here. First, making the change moves all the DT > populated devices under the /sys/devices/platform tree, not just > platform devices. All DT populated *platform* devices. There are others that have their own locations. > Second, I expect there is going to be userspace breakage to move them. > I've considered moving them before, but so far have felt that being > tidier hasn't been worth the potential breakage. Userspace /shouldn't/ > be relying on the node name, but we all know that userspace always does > what it should, right? > > That said, I'm mostly concerned about breakage on Power machines, not on > the ARM devices in this regard. If you are convinced that I'm worrying about > nothing, then I'm fine with making the change. If anyone complains > however then it will need to be reverted. I don't see an issue with power. Cheers, Ben.