Re: (Semi-random) thoughts on device tree structure and devfs

[Iain Hibbert <plunky%rya-online.net@localhost>]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Masao Uebayashi wrote:

> > We can discard the pseudo-devices concept, if need be.
>
> In what sense?
>
> As I explained in the first post, pseudo device is strict definition;
> it has no parent in terms of physiical topology.  It may have parents
> in terms of components.   I've very carefully investigated those.  I
> strictly defferenciate them.  Please re-read the first post in this
> thread.

If a device has no parent, just attach it at root (similar to mainbus*),
with parent == NULL, or even pseudo* at root, and pseudo-dev* at pseudo?

It is a frustration when building a 'software' device that there are some
differences between the methodology of configuration, and it is not
possible to pass configuration arguments from userland into the device
attach routine..

I think the "pseudo-device" abstraction is unnecessary

iain