On 6/9/05, Sylvain Munaut <tnt at 246tnt.com> wrote: > > Grant Likely wrote: > >>From what I can tell, I should be able to register more than one > > driver for a particular device name (mpc52xx_psc). > > I always assumed that yes. > But now looking more closely, I'm not sure what I based that assumption > on ... And if not the case that's indeed a problem because that's what's > used to support the different function supported by the PSCs. I was assuming so too, and it seems that the device structure would support it. Who would know the answer to this?
> > > Otherwise I would > > need to change arch/ppc/syslib/mpc52xx_devices.c to have a different > > name for each psc. > > No you shouldn't have to touch that. The > mpc52xx_match_psc_function(idx, "spi") is there to know which driver > should be used for what PSC and you're using it correctly so it _should_ > work. I thought so, if I disable the mpc52xx_uart driver then my driver will register correctly. I agree that it is not desireable to touch mpc52xx_devices.c > > > If I change the sysfs code to ignore the failure > > to create a directory then the driver seems to register fine. > > A "better" quick-fix would be to change the platform_match > (drivers/platform.c) to support "sub-fonctions". For example when using > mpc52xx_psc.spi it only matches what's before the dot (if any) with the > device name. ... so that a different directory will be created in sysfs for each driver? That's got possibilities. > > That changes the semantic of the driver names for the platform bus > however, making the dot a "special" char. Who needs to be asked about this? Should I take this discussion over the the LKML? Thanks, g.
