Re: [PATCH] Minor change to platform_device_register_simple prototype

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

On 12/7/05, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 01:05:39AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Monday 05 December 2005 15:27, Russell King wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 09:23:37PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > The name parameter of platform_device_register_simple should be of
> > > > type const char * instead of char *, as we simply pass it to
> > > > platform_device_alloc, where it has type const char *.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
> > >
> > > However, I've been wondering whether we want to keep this "simple"
> > > interface around long-term given that we now have a more flexible
> > > platform device allocation interface - I don't particularly like
> > > having superfluous interfaces for folk to get confused with.
> >
> > Now that you made platform_device_alloc install default release
> > handler there is no need to have the _simple interface. I will
> > convert input devices (main users of _simple) to the new interface
> > and then we can get rid of it.
>
> That sounds like a very good idea.
>

Another thing - bunch of input code currently creates platform devices
but does not create corresponding platform drivers (because they don't
support suspend/resume or shutdown and probing is done right there in
module init function).

What is the genral policy on platform devices? Should they always have
a corresponding driver ir it is OK to leave them without one?

--
Dmitry