From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752938Ab2HUNkG (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:40:06 -0400 Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:55273 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751957Ab2HUNkC (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:40:02 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:44:39 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: Tomas Hlavacek Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, alan@linux.intel.com, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, marek.vasut@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 1/1] [RFC] uartclk from serial_core exposed to sysfs Message-ID: <20120821144439.2bfcfc8d@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: References: <1344929718-22736-1-git-send-email-tmshlvck@gmail.com> <1345401285-14473-1-git-send-email-tmshlvck@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.8; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I have updated the patch to a new v4 in order to remove the race in > sysfs file creation and add sysfs file description to a Documentation > directory. But still the patch creates the sysfs file separately for > each serial TTY device by assigning attribute_groups to the struct > device and not for the whole driver at once as Greg advised because I > was unable to figure out how to do that (even though I tried pretty > hard). Does it make sense like this? Or do you have any hint for a > better way to do it, please? I'm fine with it - dunno about GregKH. Given the way tty 'drivers' and tty devices fit together I'm not 100% sure it makes sense to do it per driver. Plus once we have the basis we can fix a lot of the detail afterwards. Alan