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.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
