lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectPlatform device id
Hi Greg, all,

While platform_device.id is a u32, platform_device_add() handles "-1" as
a special id value. This has potential for confusion and bugs. One such
bug was reported to me by David Brownell:

http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/i2c/2007-September/001787.html

And since then I've found two other drivers affected (uartlite and
i2c-pxa).

Could we at least make platform_device.id an int so as to clear up the
confusion? I doubt that the id will ever be a large number anyway.

To go one step further, I am questioning the real value of this naming
exception for these "unique" platform devices. On top of the bugs I
mentioned above, it has potential for compatibility breakage: adding a
second device of the same type will rename the first one from "foo" to
"foo.0". It also requires specific checks in many individual platform
drivers. All this, as I understand it, for a purely aesthetic reason. I
don't think this is worth it. Would there be any objection to simply
getting rid of this exception and having all platform devices named
"foo.%d"?

--
Jean Delvare
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-09-07 15:37    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans