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    [W:0.019 / U:63.416 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site