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 10:57:34 -0500 Message-ID: <573DE26E.2040403@ti.com> References: <573C9F45.5090109@ti.com> <201605191744.07228@pali> <573DE04D.9050101@ti.com> <201605191751.28412@pali> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:34472 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754667AbcESP6F (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2016 11:58:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <201605191751.28412@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 10:51 AM, Pali Roh=C3=A1r wrote: > On Thursday 19 May 2016 17:48:29 Andrew F. Davis wrote: >> 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? >>> >>> It is not name of driver, but directory name of sysfs path where >>> device is exported... >> >> Which is named after the drivers name, so the same question remains. >> :/ >=20 > No, it is not driver name, but device name. That is different. >=20 My bad, that's what I meant, device names should be dynamic, right? Relying on them being static in software would then be buggy (like relying on eth0 being the right NIC everytime)? I'm not familiar with the N900 software, but IDR can give out different numbers and may not always give the first battery #0 (it does now but i= s that a guarantee in IDR?) and if not then what is the userspace respons= e to this changing?