From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751415AbbCKIDx (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 04:03:53 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:33514 "EHLO mail-wg0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750960AbbCKIDr (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 04:03:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150310173948.GB4124@norris-Latitude-E6410> References: <1425418844-25177-1-git-send-email-fransklaver@gmail.com> <1425418844-25177-2-git-send-email-fransklaver@gmail.com> <20150309230250.GA13266@ld-irv-0074> <20150310173948.GB4124@norris-Latitude-E6410> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:03:46 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/60] mtd: core: tone down suggestion that dev.parent should be set From: Frans Klaver To: Brian Norris Cc: David Woodhouse , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Brian Norris wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:47:46AM +0100, Frans Klaver wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Brian Norris >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 10:39:45PM +0100, Frans Klaver wrote: >> >> add_mtd_device() has a comment suggesting that the caller should have >> >> set dev.parent. This is required to have the device show up in sysfs, >> > >> > What do you mean "have the device show up in sysfs"? AFAICT, this only >> > has bearing on whether the *parent* device shows up as a sysfs symlink >> > within the MTD device directory. i.e.: >> > >> > /sys/class/mtd/mtd*/device >> > >> > For instance, this sort of symlink: >> > >> > /sys/class/mtd/mtd0/device -> ../../../f03e2800.nand >> > >> > It might be good to clarify this in the commit message, since you make >> > the problem sound worse than (I think) it is. >> >> I do? That was definitely not my intention. I'll look into it. > > Maybe it's just my bias when reading, since some people have complained > loudly about this, seemingly without understanding that the problem > really isn't that significant. > > So my question was really just to confirm my own understanding, that > this only affects the 'device' symlink. Ah right. I'll double check and reword where necessary. I already had the feeling that this wasn't very significant, as there weren't any real issues related to this using these drivers. > BTW, it'd be nice if you don't respam with another 60 patches, if you're > only changing a few of them. I can probably take most of them as-is, > after you confirm there are no more compile failures. Sure thing, I thought as much. Thanks, Frans