Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Dec 2005 23:26:52 +0000 | From | Russell King <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Minor change to platform_device_register_simple prototype |
| |
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:37:05PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > > Another thing - bunch of input code currently creates platform devices > > but does not create corresponding platform drivers (because they don't > > support suspend/resume or shutdown and probing is done right there in > > module init function). > > > > What is the general policy on platform devices? Should they always have > > a corresponding driver or is it OK to leave them without one? > > If it wasn't OK, I'd expect platform_device_alloc and > platform_device_register to fail when no matching driver is found.
You're actually talking about driver model convention, which is that if a driver for a device is missing, we do not return an error - a hotplug event (or whatever is the flavour of the month) might provide a driver.
For example, you might have a SMC91x device on your board, and you may have chosen to build the driver as a module. You wouldn't want the device to not register.
Why should a driver registering its own platform device be treated any different (from any platform provided device or indeed the rest of the device/driver model)?
-- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - 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/
| |