From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Lawnick Subject: Re: [PATCH]i2c: Make test for force on client probe possible Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:02:31 +0100 Message-ID: <49C34D97.1010603@gmx.de> References: <49BA325D.7030308@gmx.de> <20090313130942.5addd79e@hyperion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090313130942.5addd79e-ig7AzVSIIG7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Sorry for the delay, had to fix a bug in u-boot... Jean Delvare said the following: > Hi Michael, > > I don't know how you sent this mail, but that's not OK. If you intend > to do kernel development, you have to use a real e-mail addresses all > along the way. > Discussed in PM. > On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:15:57 +0100, Michael Lawnick wrote: >> in new driver model 'kind' is no more provided for client's probe >> function. The driver frame work creates the path >> sys/bus/i2c/devices/[bus]-[dev]/ and populates it with the entries >> modalias, name, subsystem@ and uevent. If probe fails (because the >> device is not on bus at the moment) the client's sysFs-entries are not >> created, but the entries above remain. > > This is correct, and this is by design. This is how the Linux device > driver model works, BTW, nothing i2c-specific there. > Even if this is by (current linux) design, I think it is not ok ;-) It leaves an inconsistent (not instable) system. IMHO either the entries should be completely removed or completely created but not that half the way. Should we CC another list? -- Regards, Michael