On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 08:00:57 +0100
Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:48:32PM -0700, Jason Litzinger wrote:
> > > This is fine, but the fact that the most subsystem feels like it has to
> > > have its own attribute type is the big problem with this file, that
> > > should not be needed at all, and hopefully will be fixed up someday soon
> > > (i.e. it's a requirement before it can get out of staging...)

That's interesting. We still need to set up a strategy to get this driver
out of staging one day, as we decided on the ELCE 2015 in Dublin. A good
starting point would be a list of requirements that need to be met to
achieve this goal.

Does this make sense?

> > Ok, couple follow up questions.
> > 
> > Something like struct device/DEVICE_ATTR_* (or something that exists
> > already) to expose the same functionality?
> Yes, that is correct.
> > I'm happy to iterate patches to address this, but, Christian, do you already
> > have a plan/patchset in the works?  I haven't come across a prior
> > discussion of this in the mailing list, but I may have missed it in my
> > search.

Yes, we do have plans to fix this up. I'm just not sure _when_ we are
going to send in patches for this.

> It's a non-trivial change, and it requires you to understand the driver
> model code a bunch to make a new bus type and register devices to it.
> If you have questions about it, let me know.
> good luck!
> greg k-h

devel mailing list

Reply via email to