[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: two patches - request for comments
On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 01:20:30AM +0400, Andrew Zabolotny wrote:
> Hello!
> I'm going to submit the class_find_device() patch (attached for your
> convenience) as a pre-requisite for the backlight/lcd device class patch
> (also included so that you can take at it as well) via Russel King (the
> backlight/lcd patch is needed for our ARM-based handhelds framebuffer
> devices). Any comments/objections are welcome.
> The LCD and backlight device classes were implemented with the following in
> mind:

Becides the comments that Todd had about the power management stuff, I
have the following comments:
- please inline your patches, I can't quote them :(
- you create the DEVICE_ATTR macro, why not use the one already
created for you (CLASS_DEVICE_ATTR will work I think.)
- Don't do a unregister function by passing a string to it.
Explicitly pass the pointer of the object that you want to
unregister, like all other kernel interfaces do. With that
change you no longer need the class_find_device() patch,
- How about some drivers that actually use this interface?
Again, you are creating interfaces with no examples of users
of the interface, which isn't acceptable.


greg k-h
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.092 / U:0.724 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site