From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751885AbWCINde (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 08:33:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751893AbWCINde (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 08:33:34 -0500 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([194.106.48.114]:50852 "EHLO tim.rpsys.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751885AbWCINdd (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 08:33:33 -0500 Subject: Re: [rfc] separate sharpsl_pm initialization from sysfs code From: Richard Purdie To: Pavel Machek Cc: kernel list , lenz@cs.wisc.edu In-Reply-To: <20060309124237.GA3794@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20060309124237.GA3794@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:33:21 +0000 Message-Id: <1141911202.10107.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 13:42 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > On collie, battery sensing code is not on platform bus -- it is on > ucb1x00. Is this acceptable way to make sharpsl_pm useful for collie? > It separates code that is bus-independent, so collie can call only > code it needs. I'm not sure why the battery sensing code being on a non-platform bus prevents you from registering a platform device as mentioned in my other email? If you register the device, you then get the benefit of all the features of the common code like the sysfs attributes and common charging code. Its not really designed to be used outside the device model and I suspect trying to do so is just going to mean lots more nasty changes to it in the future... Richard