From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262469AbUBYEWe (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:22:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262475AbUBYEWe (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:22:34 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([65.200.24.183]:4321 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262469AbUBYEWd (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:22:33 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:22:24 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Dave Boutcher Cc: Ryan Arnold , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, boutcher@us.ibm.com, Hollis Blanchard Subject: Re: new driver (hvcs) review request and sysfs questions Message-ID: <20040225042224.GA5135@kroah.com> References: <1077667227.21201.73.camel@SigurRos.rchland.ibm.com> <20040225012845.GA3909@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:12:09PM -0600, Dave Boutcher wrote: > > It is also true that it is unlike the representation of most other things > in sysfs, so perhaps this is the time to change before it gets too baked > into things. I agree. Is there any reason we _have_ to stick with the OF names? It seems to me to make more sense here not to, to make it more like the rest of the kernel. That is, if the address after the @ is unique. Is that always the case? thanks, greg k-h