From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: driverfs is not for everything! (was: [PATCH] /proc/scsi/map) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:34:22 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3D16771E.2010401@pacbell.net> References: <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C02AB7F52@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Grover, Andrew" Cc: 'Nick Bellinger' , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Patrick Mochel > Is the device PHYSICALLY hooked up to the computer? If not, it shouldn't be > in devicefs. What's "devicefs" -- some new filesystem? Or a mis/re-naming of "driverfs"? I assume you don't mean "devfs". > The device tree (for which devicefs is the fs representation) was originally > meant to enable good device power management and configuration. Surely a driver using IP-over-wire like iSCSI is no less deserving of appearing in "driverfs" than one whose driver uses custom-protocol-over-a-"wire" like USB, FireWire, FC, IR, SCSI, or Bluetooth? I don't see why some disks (for example) should deserve to be "more equal than others" -- and approved to be in driverfs. Admittedly some of those may have few power management concerns beyond basic startup/shutdown sequencing. But the configuration management issues won't go away just because a driver talks to a device over some more generalized notion of wire. I suspect those are probably more important, long-term, than the power management hooks. I seem to recall other operating systems starting out with a device/driver tree well before power management existed, and was surprised when I noticed Linux didn't have one yet. No, of course driverfs isn't for everything. But if it's not for all drivers, then what's it for -- just power management? - Dave