Messages in this thread | | | From | <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH v7 char-misc-next] misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add OTP/EEPROM driver for the pci1xxxx switch | Date | Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:07:12 +0000 |
| |
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 9:47 PM To: VaibhaavRam TL - I69105 <VaibhaavRam.TL@microchip.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 char-misc-next] misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add OTP/EEPROM driver for the pci1xxxx switch
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 04:01:15PM +0000, VaibhaavRam.TL@microchip.com wrote: > > > Again, default group will handle this automatically, you should > > > never need to call a sysfs_*() call from a driver. Otherwise something is usually very wrong. > > > > Are you recommending similar to this snippet? > > > > static struct bin_attribute *pci1xxxx_bin_attributes[] = { > > &pci1xxxx_otp_attr, > > &pci1xxxx_eeprom_attr > > NULL, > > }; > > > > static const struct attribute_group pci1xxxx_bin_attributes_group = { > > .bin_attrs = pci1xxxx_bin_attributes, }; .. > > .. > > auxiliary_device.device.attribute_group = > > pci1xxxx_bin_attributes_group > > Yes. > > > This creates sysfs for both EEPROM and OTP at once and handles for its removal, right? > > But, In this case, I have to check whether EEPROM is responsive and only then create sysfs for it. > > > > Can you please provide some guidance, on how to handle this situation without using sysfs_*(). > > Use the "is_visible" callback in your group to tell the driver core if the specific attribute needs to be created or not.
I have added "is_bin_visible" callback and it is working fine. Sysfs for EEPROM and OTP is created inside drivers folder
But I have used attribute group inside device_driver under auxiliary_driver structure. as opposed to what I have mentioned previously because , struct device_driver is exposed to me instead of struct device. Since there can be only one instance of driver for multiple devices, I cannot account for multiple instances of EEPROM/OTPs present in those devices.
Is it possible to use sysfs_create_group in this situation?
Thanks Vaibhaav Ram
| |