Subject: Re: root device
To: Jason R Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/10/2003 17:53:38
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:18:04AM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > Uhm, I think that Jason changed that recently. Pseudo-devices now all
> > attach under a pseudo-device-parent node, which is under the root node.
> No, not all pseudo-devices have a pseudo-device-parent node:
> 1. Not even all pseudo-devices appear in the device tree; only
> ones which need to have children do.
I think we should put them all in the tree. It'll let us keep track of
what is and isn't in the system.
> 2. The parent of pseudo-devices that are in the device tree is
> ROOT. It would be fine with me to change it to PSEUDO (and
> define such a value, obviously), but then you'd need to make
> sure that all the places that test for ROOT also test for
Why not make a PSEUDO node under ROOT, and put all pseudo devices under
that? That way it's obvious that it's a pseudo device.