Re: [PATCH] Input: drivers/joystick: use parallel port device model

[Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 01:43:06PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 01:36:18PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:04:26PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 09:54:27AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:45:25PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:53:23AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Sudip,
> > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 07:36:34PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
<snip>
> > > > 
> > > > No, unfortunately I do not.
> > > > 
> > > > Since neither of us can test the change what is the benefit of doing the
> > > > conversion? What will be gained by doing it? Are there plans for parport
> > > > subsystem to remove the old style initialization?
> > > Yes, that is the plan. Well, if you are not comfortable with introducing
> > > attach and detach functions then this can be done in another way where
> > > there will be very minimum change in the code. But I will prefer to have
> > > attach and detach then it can take advantage of the hotplug feature.
> > > Adding Greg in To: list for his comments.
> > 
> > Converting to the "new" api is the end goal here, no need to keep the
> > old one around anymore.
> 
> OK, then I guess we can do the conversion right (dropping db9_base
> module-global) and see if anyone screams at us.
I am working on it now to remove db9_base. But in the detach callback we
will get struct parport * and from parport to get a pardevice we need to
get it from port->physport->devices. Since it is having PARPORT_FLAG_EXCL
it is ok, but should we really depend on and work with the internal data
structures of the parport rather than working with the exported api?

regards
sudip