From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: vitor Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] Add the I3C subsystem Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:25:11 +0000 Message-ID: <08a591ae-c75b-80b4-b608-ca92f6d932f9@synopsys.com> References: <20181026144333.12276-1-boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> <76b1d15d-232c-d8ba-5eba-8394e71be725@synopsys.com> <20181115135731.25f60990@bbrezillon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann , Boris Brezillon Cc: Vitor Soares , Wolfram Sang , Linux I2C , Jonathan Corbet , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , gregkh , Przemyslaw Sroka , Arkadiusz Golec , Alan Douglas , Bartosz Folta , Damian Kos , Alicja Jurasik-Urbaniak , Cyprian Wronka , Suresh Punnoose , Rafal Ciepiela , Thomas Petazzoni , Nishanth Menon , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Arnd, On 15/11/18 14:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I agree about better not exposing the bus as a /dev/i3c* node, and that we > probably do need to expose individual devices in some form to allow > writing complete user space drivers that can do everything a kernel driver > can do. > > Can you describe what a low-level interface to the device looks like > in the kernel? Can this be abstracted as simply pread()/pwrite() plus > an interrupt mechanism, or do we need a set of ioctl() operations as > well? Like in i2c is likely to need the ioctl() too. Best regards, Vitor Soares