Re: [PATCH] i2c: Do not give adapters a default parent

[Jean Delvare <khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Kay,

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:19:22 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 16:02, Jean Delvare<khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > I don't think you need the "return" here, as sysfs_remove_link returns
> > void.
> 
> Fixed. Thanks.

What's the merge timeline for this patch?

> > Other than that (and in practice even with that) your patch works just
> > fine for me. Thanks! Unfortunately it doesn't provide perfect
> > compatibility, [...] to add this device link (pointing to "..") temporarily
> > or would that be too confusing?
> 
> I think that's ok, if it solves a real problem. The entire idea of _a_
> "device" link is pretty flawed, and the reason we ripped all the
> "struct class_device" devices out.

OK, I've added the "device" link and now compatibility works perfectly.
I'll post the updated patch series soon, if you want to take a look.

Would it make sense to move the "device" link creation into
class_compat_create_link()? I suspect other users of a compatibility
class may need it as well.

> > Another thing we have to discuss is the compatibility option. For now
> > I've made it i2c-specific and enabled by default:
> >
> > config I2C_COMPAT
> >        boolean "Enable compatibility bits for old user-space"
> >        default y
> >        help
> >          Say Y here if you intend to run lm-sensors 3.1.1 or older.
> >
> > But this means a lot of ifdefs in my code (6). With a system-wide
> > option, we could provide empty stubs I could get rid of them. OTOH, It
> > is easier to control the lifetime, and change the default value, of a
> > subsystem specific option. So I'm not too sure what do to.
> 
> I'm not sure too. I think it's fine to have it per-subsytem, as only
> the subsystem knows for how long it is needed, and it can probably be
> dropped some day.

OK, fine with me.

-- 
Jean Delvare