From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754055Ab0HKPS5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:18:57 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36460 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753463Ab0HKPS4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:18:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:15:10 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Masayuki Ohtake Cc: meego-dev@meego.com, LKML , qi.wang@intel.com, yong.y.wang@intel.com, andrew.chih.howe.khor@intel.com, arjan@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [MeeGo-Dev][PATCH] Topcliff: Update PCH_IEEE1588 driver to 2.6.35 Message-ID: <20100811151510.GB9180@suse.de> References: <4C612AA4.5040100@dsn.okisemi.com> <20100810171343.GE21220@suse.de> <002601cb3926$edaf24d0$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <002601cb3926$edaf24d0$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 04:29:25PM +0900, Masayuki Ohtake wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > Do they all have to be ioctls? What exactly are they doing? > I think using ioctl is common for this patch. "Common" is not ok, right? > Do you think that using ioctl is NOT appropriate for this patch? Yes. > Let me know your intension in more detail. Please express yours. Why do you feel you need these to be ioctls? What exactly are they doing? Where is the documentation for them all? > > And are they 32/64bit safe? > Only 32bit support. That's an obvious problem that needs to be resolved, right? thanks, greg k-h