Magnus Damm <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Patrick Pannuto <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Inspiration for this comes from: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg31161.html >> >> RFC: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/3/496 >> Patch is unchanged from the RFC. Reviews seemed generally positive >> and it seemed this was desired functionality. > > Thanks for your patch, it's really nice to see work done in this area! > I'd like to see something like this merged in the not so distant > future. At this point I'm not so concerned about the details, so I'll > restrict myself to this: > >> /drivers/my_driver.c >> static struct platform_driver my_driver = { >> .driver = { >> .name = "my-driver", >> .owner = THIS_MODULE, >> .bus = &my_bus_type, >> }, >> }; > > I would really prefer not to have the bus type in the here. I > understand it's needed at this point, but I wonder if it's possible to > adjust the device<->driver matching for platform devices to allow any > type of pseudo-platform bus_type.
I totally agree here. Keeping the drivers ignorant of the bus (or SoC) they are on will make them much more portable. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
