On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 07:15:43PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 07:57:44AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > > This reverts commit 566fc96198b4bb07ca6806386956669881225271. > > > > This exposes a userspace API that is still under debate. Revert the > > change before the uAPI gets exposed to avoid making a mistake. QAIC is > > otherwise still functional. > > > > Suggested-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Pranjal Ramajor Asha Kanojiya <quic_pkanojiy@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > And can you cc: me when you resubmit this? It's not really correct in a > number of places and can be made simpler if you really want to have your > own class and device major. +1 on this, in the other thread my take was that this should go through driver model tree in the mhi bus, and I guess needs some review there about safety and all that. We do a lot of funny uapi in drm/accel, but full generic driver-in-userspace is really not our thing :-) I guess there's also the question whether this should be debugfs (like the usb stuff, or did that move by now) or real chardev. Might also make sense to integrate with vfio/mdev/iommufd depending how the security model works. But really this is all stuff where I'm hightailing it asap :-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
