On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 12:06:22PM GMT, Mario Limonciello wrote: > On 7/18/2025 12:00 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 08:41:33AM GMT, Mario Limonciello wrote: > > > From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > When compiled without CONFIG_VIDEO pci_create_boot_display_file() will > > > never create a sysfs file for boot_display. Guard the sysfs file > > > declaration against CONFIG_VIDEO. > > > > > > Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20250718224118.5b3f22b0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c > > > index 6b1a0ae254d3a..f6540a72204d3 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c > > > @@ -680,12 +680,14 @@ const struct attribute_group *pcibus_groups[] = { > > > NULL, > > > }; > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_VIDEO > > > static ssize_t boot_display_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, > > > char *buf) > > > { > > > return sysfs_emit(buf, "1\n"); > > > } > > > static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(boot_display); > > > > I failed to give my comment during the offending series itself, but it is never > > late than never. Why are we adding non-PCI attributes under bus/pci in the first > > place? Though the underlying device uses PCI as a transport, only the PCI bus > > specific attrbutes should be placed under bus/pci and the driver/peripheral > > specific attrbutes should belong to the respective bus/class/device hierarchy. > > > > Now, if other peripherals (like netdev) start adding these device specific > > attributes under bus/pci, it will turn out to be a mess. > > > > - Mani > > > > It was mostly to mirror the location of where boot_vga is, which arguably > has the same issue you raise. > Yes, I agree. But 'boot_vga' has set a bad precedence IMO. > I would be incredibly surprised if there was a proposal to add a > 'boot_display' attribute from netdev.. Not 'boot_display' but why not 'boot_network' or something else. I was just merely pointing out the fact that the other subsystems can start dumping device/usecase specific attributes under bus/pci. - Mani -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
