Re: [PATCH] [PNP] 'modalias' sysfs export

[Adam Belay <ambx1@neo.rr.com>]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 07:21:12AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:02:21AM -0500, Adam Belay wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 05:14:58AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > 
> > > Macio solved the problem by adding all devices to a single string and
> > > let the device table match one of these id's in that single string:
> > >   http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;hb=HEAD;f=drivers/macintosh/macio_sysfs.c#l42
> > > 
> > > We should first check if that is possible for PnP too, or solve that
> > > problem in general at that level before we introduce such a hack.
> > 
> > I do have some concerns about merging every ID into a single string.  The
> > orginal design goal of having multiple IDs was to allow vendors to specify
> > a single high priority ID that a driver that supports the device's complete
> > feature set could match against.  If that driver is unavailable, it is
> > acceptable to search for other drivers that might match against a
> > compatibility ID and support a partial feature set.  Now if we just search
> > for the first driver that matches anything in a single ID string without
> > regard to the order IDs are presented, then we're not supporting the
> > specification.
> > 
> > More generally speaking, it seems to me there are four main options:
> > 
> > 1.) We remove the modalias strings from all buses, and generate them in
> > userspace exclusively.  We may loose the ability to support new buses
> > without specialized userspace software, but we gain a great deal of
> > flexibility and can eventually implement more advanced hardware detection
> > schemes without depreciating existing kernel interfaces or parsing strings
> > that are limiting when compared to bus-specific data.  Also, at least we
> > have a uniform sysfs interface.
> 
> This is what we are coming from. Just look at the input.agent in any older
> installation and you may think twice about this. :) I'm all for having
> that created by the kernel.

There are certainly cleaner ways of making this happen.

> 
> > 2.) We selectively export modalias strings on buses where this sort of
> > thing works and use hacks for other buses.
> 
> This is what we have today, right? PnP does not have modalias at all for the
> reason, we couldn't figure out how to do this. We can use the "id" file
> just fine, even when it's kind of ugly.

Yes, exactly.

> 
> > 3.) We export multiline sysfs modalias attributes and tell userspace
> > hotplug developers that they're wrong and must change their assumptions.
> 
> I'm pretty sure, we don't want multiline values. How do you stick them
> in the environment?

I'm suggesting that sticking them in as an environmental variable might be
incorrect in the first place.

> 
> > 4.) We export a single line modalias with each ID appended to the previous ID.
> > Userspace must pay careful attention to the order, but because the format is
> > bus-specific, it will have to be handled in a very specialized way. (e.g. PCI
> > has class codes, PnP has compatibility IDs, etc)
> 
> What's the problem you see? It's all about loading modules if a piece of
> hardware appears, It's even completely uncritical to load a module that
> does not do anything in the end, cause it decides not to bind to that
> hardware.

But it's inefficient, and occasionally these modules will touch hardware they
don't actually support. (e.g. acpi PCI hotplug driver)

> If you want fine grained policy in userspace, just implement it matching
> on the other values in sysfs (or whatever policy) before you run the
> "default" brute-force "modprobe $MODALIAS". I don't see any problem with
> that approach and having it work without any specific userspace setup is
> very nice. You still have full control what you can do, cause the device event
> still travels through udev/hotplug and you can do whatever a system decides
> what's needed - it's not that a modalias values would make the kernel load
> a module on its own.

Sure, but we're still tailoring the kernel interface to a specific
userspace implementation rather than requiring usage of the already available
bus-specific interfaces.  I agree it makes things easier, but as a general
convention, I don't think a specific userspace implementation should dictate
the kernel interface, especially when it doesn't fit well with some buses.

> 
> > In the long run, I think option 1 is the best choice.  I'm more concerned with
> > flexibility than having a simplistic but limited hardware detection mechanism.
> > Also, I prefer to keep code out of the kernel when there isn't a clear
> > functionality advantage.  "file2alias" is not a kernel-level interface, but
> > rather implementation specific to modutils and various module scripts included
> > with the kernel source.  Therefore, I don't think that sysfs is obligated to be
> > specially tailored toward modprobe, even if it is convenient for some buses.
> 
> It's about making it "just work", even for currently unknown buses, which
> is very nice.

With the increased popularity of userspace drivers, I think we're eventually
going to need some driver matching infustructure in userspace anyway.  If we
move away from loading modules as a means of binding drivers to devices, and
allow userspace to match drivers to specific hardware, then we can support
really useful features like configuration caches that maintain a list of
hardware detected during the last boot-up.  This would reduce boot time and
allow for persistent configuration of driver settings for each device
instance.  Also we could support driver priorities (e.g. discriminating
between drivers that partially support a feature set and drivers that
completely support a feature set).  This is currently not possible in
kernel-space.  Finally, a fair ammount of complexity could be moved out of
the kernel.  I think these sorts of things would go a long way toward the
"just works" factor.

> 
> > But I'm also interested in a practical short-term solution.  What are your
> > thoughts?  Would method #2 be acceptable?
> 
> What do you have in mind? #2 is what we have today, right?

Yes, I think it may be a workable immediate solution.

Thanks,
Adam