Re: [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: maintain a generic child device for eachrproc

[Stephen Boyd]

On 06/29/12 01:13, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In this case, I was more wondering between using a class to a device type.
>>
>>> I recall seeing a thread where
>>> someone said classes were on the way out and shouldn't be used but I
>>> can't find it anymore.
>> I also remembered a similar discussion at a plumbers mini-conf about
>> 2-3 years ago too, so I looked at device_type as an alternative to
>> class. The former looks somewhat simpler, but I couldn't find any
>> major advantage for using one over the other, and both seem to be in
>> use by many subsystems.
> Moving to device_type is so trivial that I gave it a spin (and moved
> to IDA too while at it):

Great! It looks like device_type doesn't have any list iteration support
though. Is that requirement gone? If that requirement is still there I
would think we need something like a class or bus still.

Will you resend this as part of a series? It will be easier to review then.

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/