Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] request_firmware without a device | From | Shaohua Li <> | Date | Fri, 26 May 2006 12:41:22 +0800 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 21:06 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:40:39AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 12:24 +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > > 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 why we need a 'struct device'? I didn't see any point we need it. We > > just need a 'name'. > > You need a kobject, as ideally we would have a symlink back to the > "real" kobject. So far, only "devices" need firmware, that's why it is > that way. > > > 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. > > This doesn't work, as we need a 'name'. > > > > do we really need to differentiate between sysdev and device anymore. I > > > recall a plan to unify all devices, but I might be wrong. > > I'd like this idea. But it means many works. In addition, a sysdev could > > have multiple drivers, and a 'device' can't to me. > > Today a sysdev can have that? Ick. Any examples of ones that really > do? At least cpu sysdev has two drivers currently. one is mtrr driver the other is cpurfreq.
Thanks, Shaohua - 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/
| |