On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 01:48:29 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:37:02PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 07:44:44 PM Zhang Rui wrote: > > > On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 20:47 +0800, Zhang Rui wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 14:18 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > > > > > On 10/14/2013 12:23 PM, Zhang Rui wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 17:17 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > > > > > >> There is a minor fault about ACPI enumerated I2C devices with > > > > > >> their modalias > > > > > >> attribute. Now modalias is set by device instance not by hardware > > > > > >> ID. > > > > > >> For example "i2c:INTABCD:00", "i2c:INTABCD:01" etc. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> This means each device instance gets different modalias which does > > > > > >> match > > > > > >> with generated modules.alias. Currently this is not problem as > > > > > >> matching can > > > > > >> happen also with "acpi:INTABCD" modalias. > > > > > >> > > > > > > IMO, this is not the proper fix for the modalias problem because > > > > > > ACPI > > > > > > enumerated I2C device may have compatible ids. > > > > > > Instead, we should export all the compatible ids as the modules > > > > > > alias of > > > > > > the ACPI enumerated I2C device. > > > > > > > > > > > > can you please take a look at the patch I sent out earlier? > > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3034991/ > > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3035041/ > > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3035021/ > > > > > I see. This makes sense as it avoids that same device has two > > > > > different > > > > > modaliases from both acpi and other subsystem. > > > > > > > > > > How about modalias nodes in sysfs, should they also reflect what is > > > > > matching uvent? > > > > > > > > > good catch, will fix "modalias" as well in next version. > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I have a question about the device "uevent" and "modalias" sysfs > > > attributes. > > > what is the relationship between these two? > > > Am I right to say that, if there is the "MODALIAS" field in uevent file, > > > this field must be consistent with the content in "modalias" attribute? > > Well, if it isn't, it's pretty pointless, right? > > > > I checked the code in drivers/base/platform.c, > > > static ssize_t modalias_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute > > > *a, > > > char *buf) > > > { > > > struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev); > > > int len = snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "platform:%s\n", pdev->name); > > > > > > return (len >= PAGE_SIZE) ? (PAGE_SIZE - 1) : len; > > > } > > > > > > static int platform_uevent(struct device *dev, struct kobj_uevent_env > > > *env) > > > { > > > struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev); > > > int rc; > > > > > > /* Some devices have extra OF data and an OF-style MODALIAS */ > > > rc = of_device_uevent_modalias(dev, env); > > > if (rc != -ENODEV) > > > return rc; > > > > > > add_uevent_var(env, "MODALIAS=%s%s", PLATFORM_MODULE_PREFIX, > > > pdev->name); > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > This means that the OF-style MODALIAS is not shown in "modalias" sysfs > > > attribute. > > > is this a bug? > > > > I would consider that as a bug, but I'm not sure what the recommended > > practice > > is. Greg? > > I have no idea how the OF stuff is working, and honestly, I really have > no wish to ever know anything about it. Especially when it comes to > platform devices/drivers, something that I personally hate and wish > would be deleted. > > So go ask the OF maintainers/developers, this is their domain :)
Well, OK. Whom in particular? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
