From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: nicolas.pitre@linaro.org (Nicolas Pitre)
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:27:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/5] minitty: a minimal TTY layer alternative for
 embedded systems
In-Reply-To: <20170403153103.GB22592@two.firstfloor.org>
References: <20170401222119.25106-1-nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
 <87pogur0y9.fsf@firstfloor.org>
 <alpine.LFD.2.20.1704021729470.1847@knanqh.ubzr>
 <CAHp75VdgEcyXPxENS87nHLtCEHqB5Z-1_T_W1opSiKqqNpeU2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170403153103.GB22592@two.firstfloor.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1704031304230.1847@knanqh.ubzr>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Andi Kleen wrote:

> I like the idea of mintty (if it supported ptys).

In fact PTYs could probably be implemented like another UART driver for 
the master side.

But that may come later.

> Except for that (and possibly VT) it is unlikely that people really
> rely on the obsolete terminal features from the 70ies. So it's a kind
> of cleanup.

I wouldn't push for replacing the existing code though. It is stable and 
full featured. The mini version may well never be fully standard 
compliant to keep the code small.


Nicolas