Re: two patches - request for comments

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 01:20:30AM +0400, Andrew Zabolotny wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> I'm going to submit the class_find_device() patch (attached for your
> convenience) as a pre-requisite for the backlight/lcd device class patch
> (also included so that you can take at it as well) via Russel King (the
> backlight/lcd patch is needed for our ARM-based handhelds framebuffer
> devices). Any comments/objections are welcome.
> 
> The LCD and backlight device classes were implemented with the following in
> mind:

Becides the comments that Todd had about the power management stuff, I
have the following comments:
	- please inline your patches, I can't quote them :(
	- you create the DEVICE_ATTR macro, why not use the one already
	  created for you (CLASS_DEVICE_ATTR will work I think.)
	- Don't do a unregister function by passing a string to it.
	  Explicitly pass the pointer of the object that you want to
	  unregister, like all other kernel interfaces do.  With that
	  change you no longer need the class_find_device() patch,
	  right?
	- How about some drivers that actually use this interface?
	  Again, you are creating interfaces with no examples of users
	  of the interface, which isn't acceptable.

thanks,

greg k-h