Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] request_firmware without a device | From | Marcel Holtmann <> | Date | Thu, 25 May 2006 12:24:54 +0200 |
| |
Hi Greg,
> > The patch allows calling request_firmware without a 'struct device'. > > It appears we just need a name here from 'struct device'. I changed it > > to use a kobject as Patrick suggested. > > Next patch will use the new API to request firmware (microcode) for a CPU. > > But a cpu does have a struct device. Why not just use that? > > > +fw_setup_class_device_id(struct class_device *class_dev, struct kobject *kobj) > > { > > /* XXX warning we should watch out for name collisions */ > > - strlcpy(class_dev->class_id, dev->bus_id, BUS_ID_SIZE); > > + strlcpy(class_dev->class_id, kobj->k_name, BUS_ID_SIZE); > > There's a function for this, kobject_name(), please never touch k_name > directly. > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(request_firmware_kobj); > > Ick, if you really want to do this, just fix up all callers of > request_firmware(), there aren't that many of them. > > But I don't recommend it anyway.
I also disagree with this change at all. The callers of request_firmware should not fiddle around with kobject's to make this work. All of them have their struct device and they should use it.
So I would propose that we fix the caller and the not request_firmware code. However one option would be calling it with NULL as device argument and it registers itself a dummy device for the operation.
Regards
Marcel
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |