Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: use regulator name for sysfs
From: Mark Brown
Date: Thu Feb 21 2013 - 14:59:00 EST
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:49:26PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 12:43 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It's certainly insane to change this based on the driver and given
> > that sysfs is supposed to be an ABI it's questionable if we should
> > do it at all. We certainly can't use the descriptor name as that's
> > very likely to clash if you have more than one PMIC. Taking a
> > glance through sysfs on my system what we're doing at the minute is
> > pretty idiomatic, sysfs isn't really intended for humans but rather
> > for machines to prettify.
> Does the ABI describe just the layout of the sysfs filesystem, or also
> the names of instances? Certainly the list of names of regulators
Turns out we didn't bother documenting the directory naming.
> won't be in any ABI documentation. That said, I suppose for existing
> platforms it'd probably be legitimate for someone to have looked there
> and seen the names and assumed they would never change on that
> particular platform, so changing them would break an implicit ABI.
Indeed, plus the information is all there. Like I say the current
pattern seems idiomatic for sysfs but really the issue with the current
patch is the per driver thing which just doesn't make sense.
> >> Another place a similar change might be useful is debugfs.
> > debugfs already uses more human readable names, it uses the supply
> > name (which is what we should be using if we were going to do
> > anything as it really ought to be unique already).
> Oh so it does. Was this a recent change? I could have sworn I saw lots
> of regulator.n there, but perhaps I'm remembering sysfs.
It's always been the same.
Description: Digital signature