lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/60] mtd: core: tone down suggestion that dev.parent should be set
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 09:03:46AM +0100, Frans Klaver wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Brian Norris
> <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:47:46AM +0100, Frans Klaver wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Brian Norris
> >> <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 10:39:45PM +0100, Frans Klaver wrote:
> >> >> add_mtd_device() has a comment suggesting that the caller should have
> >> >> set dev.parent. This is required to have the device show up in sysfs,
> >> >
> >> > What do you mean "have the device show up in sysfs"? AFAICT, this only
> >> > has bearing on whether the *parent* device shows up as a sysfs symlink
> >> > within the MTD device directory. i.e.:
> >> >
> >> > /sys/class/mtd/mtd*/device
> >> >
> >> > For instance, this sort of symlink:
> >> >
> >> > /sys/class/mtd/mtd0/device -> ../../../f03e2800.nand
> >> >
> >> > It might be good to clarify this in the commit message, since you make
> >> > the problem sound worse than (I think) it is.
> >>
> >> I do? That was definitely not my intention. I'll look into it.
> >
> > Maybe it's just my bias when reading, since some people have complained
> > loudly about this, seemingly without understanding that the problem
> > really isn't that significant.
> >
> > So my question was really just to confirm my own understanding, that
> > this only affects the 'device' symlink.
>
> Ah right. I'll double check and reword where necessary. I already had
> the feeling that this wasn't very significant, as there weren't any
> real issues related to this using these drivers.

OK, I just made some small edits to the language to clarify that this
patch is only fixing the 'parent device symlink' rather than the 'device
is missing in sysfs'. I also tweaked the language on all the other
patches to reflect this.

> > BTW, it'd be nice if you don't respam with another 60 patches, if you're
> > only changing a few of them. I can probably take most of them as-is,
> > after you confirm there are no more compile failures.
>
> Sure thing, I thought as much.

I ran the other 59 patches through a pretty wide range of compile tests
and saw no issues, so I've pushed patches 1-29 and 31-60 to l2-mtd.git,
with small tweaks to the commit descriptions. If you get a chance to
rework patch 30, feel free.

Thanks for the patches!

Brian


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-10 07:01    [W:0.152 / U:6.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site