On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Iain Hibbert <plu...@rya-online.net> wrote: > 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..
Could you show one (or more) real example(s) / senario(s)? That would help to understand problems & clarify requirements... Masao