Subject: Re: Device Properties: The Next Generation
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/16/2001 16:34:39
email@example.com (Chris G. Demetriou) writes:
> One way to do (2) would be to provide a limited form of inheritance,
> parent child child child
> | props props | props props |
> | for from | for from |
> | children parent | children parent |
> where each | can be (perhaps "must be") a barrier that stops
I thought about this some more last night, after I wrote my last
In fact, in the long run, you also want the cfdata locators to be
properties. (for instance, that's probably the best way to meet the
goal of getting string properties out of the config file...)
Which means that there's a place where you need properties lists, and
don't have a 'struct device' ... and so you're back to properties
lists as first class objects, separate from 'struct device'.
I was planning to extract the locator information from ioconf.c
and attach them as properties to the dev node inside dev_config_found().
Now, are they needed for both probe and attach or just attach?