Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Apr 2015 21:30:00 -0700 | From | Brian Norris <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |