From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH] add transport class symlink to device object Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:21:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20050818052156.GC29301@kroah.com> References: <9BB4DECD4CFE6D43AA8EA8D768ED51C201AD35@xbl3.ma.emulex.com> <20050813213955.GB19235@kroah.com> <20050814150231.GA9466@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050814232525.A27481@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050815004303.GB9466@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050815093244.A19811@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:7147 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750754AbVHRFlm (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:41:42 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050815093244.A19811@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox , James.Smart@Emulex.Com, Andrew Morton , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:32:44AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:43:03AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 11:25:25PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > Eww. Do you really want one struct device per tty with all the > > > memory each one eats? > > > > > > If that's really what you want you need to talk to Alan and not me. > > > Alan looks after tty level stuff, I look after serial level stuff. > > > The above is a tty level issue not a serial level issue. > > > > mmm. I don't know whether it's really a tty level issue or a serial > > issue. The only tty classes with corresponding devices are the serial > > ones, at least on my system. If this is the case, then the right fix > > would seem to be something like creating a new struct device for each > > serial port, then making that the uart_port->dev instead of the pci_dev > > or whatever. > > What's the reason for enforcing one struct device per struct class_dev ? > I thought one of the points of class_dev was that you could have multiple > of them per struct device. No such enforcement is needed at all, and not encouraged. thanks, greg k-h