On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Masao Uebayashi wrote: > > We can discard the pseudo-devices concept, if need be. > > In what sense? > > As I explained in the first post, pseudo device is strict definition; > it has no parent in terms of physiical topology. It may have parents > in terms of components. I've very carefully investigated those. I > strictly defferenciate them. Please re-read the first post in this > thread.
If a device has no parent, just attach it at root (similar to mainbus*), with parent == NULL, or even pseudo* at root, and pseudo-dev* at pseudo? It is a frustration when building a 'software' device that there are some differences between the methodology of configuration, and it is not possible to pass configuration arguments from userland into the device attach routine.. I think the "pseudo-device" abstraction is unnecessary iain
