From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932066AbaEMWxx (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2014 18:53:53 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:47708 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753372AbaEMWxq (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2014 18:53:46 -0400 Message-ID: <5372A220.6080301@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 15:52:16 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek , Pantelis Antoniou CC: Alan Tull , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Simek , Michal Simek , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jason Gunthorpe , Mark Brown , Philip Balister , Alessandro Rubini , Steffen Trumtrar , Jason Cooper , Kyle Teske , Josh Cartwright , Nicolas Pitre , Felipe Balbi , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , David Brown , Rob Landley , "David S. Miller" , Joe Perches , Cesar Eduardo Barros , Samuel Ortiz , Andrew Morton , Alan Tull , Dinh Nguyen , Yves Vandervennet Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] fpga manager framework with configfs interface References: <1399411381-10902-1-git-send-email-atull@altera.com> <1399411381-10902-2-git-send-email-atull@altera.com> <20140513192330.GA6561@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> <4190CF2D-6114-4652-90BA-899B5003ACCC@konsulko.com> <20140513205641.GA4114@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20140513205641.GA4114@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/13/2014 01:56 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >>> Echoing filenames into files in configfs is strange at the very >>> least. Think chroot, and what about permissions...? >>> >>> It would be much better to just cat bitstream into configfs... >> >> No binary attributes supported for configfs. Apparently this is done on purpose. >> >> In fact it was my first idea about the configfs interface for DT overlays but decided >> to go with firmware file names instead. >> >> If this is valid use case (which seems to be) would patches adding binary attributes >> to configfs be accepted? > > I'd say this is very valid use, but I'm not configfs maintainer. It is > certainly better then echoing filenames there. > Almost anything is better... -hpa