From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from perch.kroah.org (mail.kroah.org [69.55.234.183]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67ED687C1 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:50:27 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:40:56 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Kumar Gala Message-ID: <20051115224056.GA14357@kroah.com> References: <20051115175955.GA14518@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: linuxppc-embedded list Subject: Re: Platform device model drawback List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:34:47PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > > You only register the driver once. The individual devices can be bound > > to the same driver, right? > > > > > Not registering it in CPM_UART, how the pdev could be obtained? > > > > > > Maybe this is clear, but platform stuff is cumbersome some times... > > > > Then make it cleaner :) > > This is where the confusion is. We have two instances of device A. We > want instance 1 of device A bound to driver "enet" and instance 2 of > device A bound to "serial". That's different from what was described earlier :) In this case, you need two different struct devices. > Today both instances are called "deviceA". However we can't register two > different drivers as "deviceA". Nor would you want to. > Not sure if that clarifies the issue any. A bit. I think it still sounds messy... thanks, greg k-h