Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: new driver (hvcs) review request and sysfs questions | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | Date | Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:34:34 +1100 |
| |
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 15:22, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:12:09PM -0600, Dave Boutcher wrote: > > > > It is also true that it is unlike the representation of most other things > > in sysfs, so perhaps this is the time to change before it gets too baked > > into things. > > I agree. Is there any reason we _have_ to stick with the OF names? It > seems to me to make more sense here not to, to make it more like the > rest of the kernel. > > That is, if the address after the @ is unique. Is that always the case?
That is the problem... I didn't check my OF spec, but I do remember clearly cases where the "unit address" isn't unique... This happens typically at the root of the device-tree, or with pseudo devices, where you can have several entries with an @0 unit address. However, I yet have to see that for things that are worth putting into sysfs ;)
One thing though is that it's only unique at a given level of hierarchy. The Unit Address in OF has no meaning outside of the context of the parent bus. That may be just fine for sysfs, but if I take as an example the PCI devices, they do have a globally unique ID here with the domain number.
Ben.
- 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/
| |