From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Andrew F. Davis" Subject: Re: Should 9aafabc7fece be reverted? Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 10:38:14 -0500 Message-ID: <573DDDE6.7070408@ti.com> References: <573C9F45.5090109@ti.com> <573D60B4.7010906@gmail.com> <20160519091719.GL29844@pali> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.11]:55981 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932261AbcESPip (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2016 11:38:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160519091719.GL29844@pali> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Pali_Roh=c3=a1r?= , Ivaylo Dimitrov Cc: Sebastian Reichel , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , David Woodhouse , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Machek On 05/19/2016 04:17 AM, Pali Roh=C3=A1r wrote: > On Thursday 19 May 2016 09:44:04 Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 18.05.2016 19:58, Andrew F. Davis wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> Why do we need this patch? I removed giving each battery a number i= n its >>> name intentionally. It doesn't seem to be needed anymore, and only = two >>> old drivers out of the ~70 power supply drivers do this. >>> >> >> The patch is needed because commit <703df6c09795> breaks existing us= erspace >> on Nokia N900, which counts on name numbering. Also, commit <703df6c= 09795> >> description says nothing about name changing, so I assumed it is an >> unintentional side-effect of splitting the code into modules. >=20 > Right, changing name cause breaking userspace and that commit does no= t > describe anything about changing name. So also from my perspective it= is > regression. >=20 =46air enough, I was unaware of the userspace breakage, the patch messa= ge only stated it was being put back because it used to exist. Thanks for the clarification, Andrew P.S. The code is still a bit strange, I'll probably go grab one of the N900s from our test farm and make sure my future cleanups don't break this, but are we sure the *name* of a driver is an ABI? Sound like ABI abuse by the N900 software to me, almost like telling Linus he can't change the kernel version number because a userspace script depends on "uname =3D=3D v2.6.x". :)