From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753353AbbKPSAc (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:00:32 -0500 Received: from lists.s-osg.org ([54.187.51.154]:55986 "EHLO lists.s-osg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752840AbbKPSA3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:00:29 -0500 Subject: Re: spi: OF module autoloading is still broken To: Mark Brown References: <56104E88.3040807@gmail.com> <20151112185926.GC8456@google.com> <20151113194031.GI8456@google.com> <20151113221228.GT12392@sirena.org.uk> <20151113225113.GJ8456@google.com> <20151113231410.GV12392@sirena.org.uk> <20151113234857.GK8456@google.com> <20151116135342.GD31303@sirena.org.uk> <564A11D9.80109@osg.samsung.com> <20151116175112.GH31303@sirena.org.uk> Cc: Brian Norris , Heiner Kallweit , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Dmitry Torokhov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org From: Javier Martinez Canillas Message-ID: <564A19B7.7000802@osg.samsung.com> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:00:23 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151116175112.GH31303@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Mark, On 11/16/2015 02:51 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 02:26:49PM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> On 11/16/2015 10:53 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> What I don't really understand here is why we've decided to push all >>> this stuff into the subsystems, it seems like if we're managing to do >>> the matching based on the compatible we really ought to be able to have >>> the core figure out the uevents for us too. I need to go have a look at >>> that... > >> There is already a set of generic OF uevents that are reported by the core >> but IIUC those are not used by udev. Please take a look to of_device_uevent() >> in drivers/of/device.c and dev_uevent() that calls it in drivers/base/core.c. > > I know what the current situation is, my point is that I don't > understand why we would choose to do that ("What I don't really > understand here..."). > Got it, sorry for misunderstanding you. I also don't know the answer FWIW. Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America