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 10:48:29 -0500 Message-ID: <573DE04D.9050101@ti.com> References: <573C9F45.5090109@ti.com> <20160519091719.GL29844@pali> <573DDDE6.7070408@ti.com> <201605191744.07228@pali> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.12]:33351 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754959AbcESPtA (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2016 11:49:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <201605191744.07228@pali> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Pali_Roh=c3=a1r?= Cc: Ivaylo Dimitrov , Sebastian Reichel , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , David Woodhouse , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Machek On 05/19/2016 10:44 AM, Pali Roh=C3=A1r wrote: > On Thursday 19 May 2016 17:38:14 Andrew F. Davis wrote: >> 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? >=20 > It is not name of driver, but directory name of sysfs path where devi= ce=20 > is exported... >=20 Which is named after the drivers name, so the same question remains. :/