On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 10:38:57AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:28:15 +0200, > Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We could change the driver-core to suppress the creation of an attribute > > if the attribute's show() or store() method returns something like > > -ENOENT at registration time? > > The driver would pass _all_ possible attributes of the device at > > registration time, but the core would only create the attributes which > > are implemented for this particular device? Would that work for you? > > > > There are already subsystems who need to do similar things internally > > (firewire), and it may be nice to add such functionality to the core. > > This sounds a bit hackish (overloading the meaning of the show() and > store() methods).
Firewire already does this today, it's actually really nice :) > > You can assign any number of attribute groups to the device. If they > > don't have a group name, they will all be created directly at the device > > level. Would that work for you? > > What about generic "conditional attribute groups"? Add a check() method > which is called just before adding them, and only add them if check() > returned 0 (or doesn't exist)? People want this on a per-attribute basis, if you did it on a group level, we would have a bunch of groups with only one attribute in it, which would be messy. thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/