Re: Platform device id

[David Brownell]

> > (Also, note that "platform", "host", and "board" are ambiguous.
> > In some contexts each is synonymous; in others, not.  I avoid
>
> In this specific case I am talking about, they're not.

That is, in *YOUR* usage context they're not.  I had to parse
what you wrote a few times before your comments about $SUBJECT
started to make sense.  I've *never* heard "host" used that way,
and rarely hear "platform" used that way either.


> The platform for a ThinkPad is either i386 or amd64.

Both i386 and x86_64 are clearly an "arch".  They even live in
an "arch" directory:  linux/arch/{i386,x86_64}.

When folk talk about a "PC Platform", they're talking about a
thing that doesn't quite exist in today's Linux tree.  If we
ever get to an arch/x86, that could have a plat-pc (or mach-pc)
subdirectory.  ThinkPads should then be a variant of that.


> I don't feel like drivers like hdaps, thinkpad-acpi, dock, bay,
> and many others really belong in the platform bus.  But that's
> what happens right now.

As a rule, there needs to be a Good Reason to create a new bus
type.  A "feel" is a pretty weak reason...

- Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/