Re: [patch 0/8] Nesting class_device patches that actually work

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On 10/18/05, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 03:18:22AM -0400, Adam Belay wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 10:26:17PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 07:24:30PM -0400, Adam Belay wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good to me.  The changes to driver model internals may be substantial.
> > > > For example, because buses and classes will share more code, it's
> > > > reasonable to allow drivers to bind to any "device" object, even class
> > > > devices.  Of course this would be limited to classes that choose to
> > > > implement driver matching etc.  We are doing this now with the pci express
> > > > port driver.
> > >
> > > That's a bus, not a class device.  Drivers bind to devices through a
> > > bus.  That's why we have busses.
> >
> > If class devices and devices belong in the same tree, then clearly the original
> > distinction is artificial.  "struct bus_type" is a class of "struct device".
> > "struct class" is a class of "struct class_dev".  We now know of devices
> > in between these two extremes (e.g. pci express port driver).  It's also
> > possible that drivers will want to bind to class devices (e.g. a partition
> > driver binding to a block device).  Isn't it fair to say that the "bus_type"
> > vs. "class" distinction is also artificial?  At the very least they are
> > duplicating some code.
>
> I agree and would like to see the "bus" functionality just as set of special
> methods of a unified device struture also used for class devices.
>
> > > > > Oh, one tiny problem.  "virtual devices" are not currently represented
> > > > > in our device tree, but are in the class tree.  Things like the
> > > > > different vc and ttys and misc devices are examples of this.  I'll just
> > > > > put them on the "platform" bus if no one minds.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should be trying to kill off the platform bus (it's artifical and
> > > > doesn't show the real relationships between these devices).  Instead, just
> > > > hang them off the root of the tree.
> > >
> > > Everything that's currently a platform device go to the root?  No,
> > > that's not going to happen, sorry.
>
> But will sticking stuff like "mice" or "tty" into "platform" will really
> work? These devices belong to their own primary class like "input" or "tty" and
> they can not be part of a "bus" at the same time, right?
>
> I'm dreaming of:
>  - merging "struct device" and "struct class_device"
>
>  - provide current "bus" and "class" methodes for _all_ devices
>

This way you are fattening object interface and I don't think it is a
good thing. While we may want to have sysfs representation of all
devices be in /sys/devices internally we should keep the interfaces
and implementation clean and do not turn it into a kitchen sink.

--
Dmitry