Re: Backlight and LCD module patches [2]

[Andrew Zabolotny]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:25:47 -0500
John Lenz <jelenz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Actually, now that I think about it a bit more, I think the  
> lcd_properties->match function should take a device * as a paramater  
> instead of a fb_info *.  Insead of passing the fb_info pointer to the  
> match function, we really should be passing the actual device  
> structure.  For example, in the pxafb driver, it would register the  
> platform_device that it creates with either the class code (if  
> class_match is used) or with the lcdbase code.  This way the lcd driver  
> could examine the device * and look at for example which resources it  
> used, which memory region it was using, etc. and make its decision.
If you look here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/6/26/84 you can see that this is
exactly what I was proposing minus your proposal for a more generic
class device match function. I was imagining that it would happen this way:
the framebuffer device during initialization calls lcd_find_device() and
passes his own 'struct device' to it; then lcd_find_device calls the match
function of every previously registered LCD device with this parameter. The
first one that says 'match' is returned. Same about backlight.

I don't see many reasons for a generic class match function. Last but not
least the lcd_find_device() function is very small, so it will be a negligible
gain but a lot of hassle (as you said, framebuffer drivers will have to be
rewritten to not use the simple_class device class).

--
Greetings,
   Andrew
-
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/