[lm-sensors] [0/6] New w1 features.

[johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru (Evgeniy Polyakov)]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:42:25 -0500
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@ameritech.net> wrote:

> On Friday 03 June 2005 18:00, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:49:45 -0500
> > Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/3/05, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru> wrote:
> > > > Dmitry, I see this discussion goes wrong way again...
> > > > Let's continue it from technical point:
> > > > you want different w1 design - like USB for example,
> > > > but it is completely wrong with w1 since
> > > > [quite previous e-mail] we can perform the search only
> > > > one time, and load a driver far after it. This is a feature,
> > > > which you want to remove [again], which allows such behaviour,
> > > > without it you just drop the device and just can not recall
> > > > later about it without full rescan.[/quote].
> > > 
> > > No, that is not what I am saying or proposing to do. When you find a
> > > device just add it to the master's bus, do not drop it. Just realize
> > > that having a family attached to it is not required. It will be just a
> > > device, without any attributes, sitting on the bus. When appropriate
> > > family driver is loaded it will scan all devices (rather in-kernel
> > > representation of them) and bind to ones it supports. Just like every
> > > other bus.
> > > 
> > > Am I still being unclear as to what I propose?
> > 
> > It is exactly how things always worked and work now.
> > We have 64bit ID with some information that it is orphaned device 
> > [it's ->family->id = 0], so this device will be checked when new family
> > driver added and hopefully new attributes [which all live in one place
> > called w1_family] added. I called process of new attribute assignment
> > as "reconnection".
> > 
> > Exactly as you described.
> >
> 
> *Sigh* We keep talking past each other...

Yep...
 
> What I am saying is that your decision that every W1 slave device should
> be bound to a family is unfortunate one. It forces you to implement
> "default" family and _add_ more code to handle switchover.
> 
> I am proposing that you allow w1 slaves with ->family = NULL and let
> driver core to do the binding whenever a new family (driver) is being
> registered.

If we do not use default family [as it was] we can not know that device
exists, we can not see it in sysfs, but instead dmesg was filled with
"Family 81 is not registered" messages each tiem the same device is found.

> Please do use driver core, we really do not need another custom driver
> model in the kernel.
> 
> -- 
> Dmitry


	Evgeniy Polyakov

Only failure makes us experts. -- Theo de Raadt