Re: Crazy Idea: Replacing /dev using sysfs over time

[Shawn Starr <shawn.starr@rogers.com>]

Or instead of even needing major/minor we just have:


/sys/class/sound
       `- - audio0
                |
                | - raw
        `-- dsp0
                |
                | - raw

Then instead, let udev know that audio0 and dsp0 belong to one sound card 
device or have it report this in sysfs:

/dev/class/sound
       `--sound0     
               | 
               | -- dev
               | -- device -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00
               `-- audio0
                     |- device  -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.5
               `--dsp0
                     | -device -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.5
               `--mixer0 
        `--sound1
               |
               | -dev   
               | -- device -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00:1a
               `--audio0
                       |- device 
--> ../../../devices/pci0000:00:1a/0000:00:1c.6

And so forth.


Then map sound0 devices in /dev/dsp0 /dev/mixer0 /dev/audio0  with udev

*NOTE: I am not avocating devfs, but more of keeping sysfs as the primary 
structure for devices.

On September 26, 2005 19:28, Shawn Starr wrote: > I wonder if in the future, 
we can just eliminate /dev altogether (or map it
> via sysfs until older apps move away from /dev). It just seems we could
> represent major,minor in a sysfs node:
>
>         /sys/class/block/
>         `-- sda
>
>             |-- sda1
>             |
>                     | - major
>                     | - minor
>                     | - raw
>             |
>             |-- sda2
>             |
>                     | - major
>                     | - minor
>                     | - raw
>
>             `-- sda3
>
> and so forth, or under a different branch elsewhere.
>
> Does it make sense? Logical? Illogical? Do we really need /dev other than
> for historical/legacy purposes?
>
> Shawn.