From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: John Williams <john.williams@petalogix.com>,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>,
Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hjk@hansjkoch.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] uio/pdrv_genirq: Add OF support
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:32:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201104190932.31777.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110419061121.GB5252@ponder.secretlab.ca>
On Tuesday 19 April 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:58:25AM +1000, John Williams wrote:
> >
> > I know the arguments against the 'generic-uio' tag, but come on, let's
> > look at the lesser of two evils here! I call BS on this DTS purity.
Both a specific device ID and something like "generic-uio" are
equally broken:
If you have generic-uio, it is impossible to write an in-kernel driver
for the same hardware without changing the device tree, meaning that
it is impossible to correctly describe the hardware in the device tree.
If you put a meaningful identifier into the match table, it is also
impossible to have an in-kernel driver for the hardware, because now
you have no way to choose whether to handle the device with UIO
or an in-kernel driver.
There may be cases where you have two instances of the same device
in a machine and want one of them to be driven by UIO and the other
by another driver. A common example of this would be a virtual machine
where one device is passed through to the guest and the other is
used by the host. I've done this for USB input devices and PCI network
interfaces.
> Call it what you like, but the reasons are well founded. The alternative
> that has been proposed which I am in agreement with is to investigate
> giving userspace the hook to tell the kernel at runtime which devices
> should be picked up by the uio driver.
Yes, I believe this is the best option.
> In the mean time, explicitly modifying the match table is an okay
> compromise.
Agreed.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-19 7:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-18 8:50 [PATCH v3] uio/pdrv_genirq: Add OF support Michal Simek
2011-04-18 10:35 ` Paul Mundt
2011-04-18 11:10 ` Michal Simek
2011-04-18 16:06 ` Wolfram Sang
2011-04-19 1:58 ` John Williams
2011-04-19 6:11 ` Grant Likely
2011-04-19 7:32 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2011-04-19 12:37 ` John Williams
2011-04-19 13:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-19 14:49 ` Grant Likely
2011-04-19 15:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-04-19 15:45 ` Grant Likely
2011-04-21 12:08 ` Wolfram Sang
2011-04-21 23:46 ` John Williams
2011-04-22 6:07 ` Wolfram Sang
2011-04-19 8:16 ` Michal Simek
2011-04-19 6:08 ` Grant Likely
2011-04-19 8:15 ` Michal Simek
2011-04-19 22:00 ` Hans J. Koch
2011-04-19 23:09 ` Scott Wood
2011-04-27 11:05 ` Michal Simek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201104190932.31777.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=hjk@hansjkoch.de \
--cc=john.williams@petalogix.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=monstr@monstr.eu \
--cc=w.sang@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox