On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 23:47, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:39:37PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Sure, if there is something we all can use, we will switch over to it. >>>> Until that happens, hacks have to be maintained by the people relying >>>> on them, not by udev upstream. >>> >>> You can use it. Just like many platforms (of varying architectures) >>> already do in other contexts, all using unmodified Linus kernels. >>> >>> Device tree is a well-documented cross-platform way of providing >>> hardware identification information (and in great detail) to the >>> kernel. I think it is the system you are asking for. Am I right in >>> saying that its location in /proc is the main downfall that you are >>> criticising it for? (i.e. would your viewpoint change if it appeared >>> in /sys tomorrow?) >> >> What about all of the existing device tree work that has been going on >> in the kernel for the past year? It should be in sysfs already, so why >> not just use those files instead? >> >> As for DMI being "desktop" specific, others agree, and tried to write >> patches to rename everything. I think they were rightly shot down as it >> would have broken lots of userspace code, so there's no problem with >> putting this type of information into the dmi "namespace" as it is. That was me. Thanks Kay for pointing me to this thread. The problem with the re-write was that people objected to a unified system interface in which different architecture's firmware could be exposed. The main issue was that the only two that "really" required this functionality were ia64 and x86. powerpc *could* make use of the interface but it wasn't a necessity as it is in the ia64 and x86 arches. > > Yeah, we should probably read it as "Digital Machine Identification" > and just let all platforms export it. Stuff would magically just work > out-of--the-box. :) > Kay, sometimes the best ideas come from jokes :) ... that doesn't sound as bad as you would think! Going back to my [v3] here http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131099454831224&w=2 reworking the System Firmware Interface into a Digital Machine Identification layer would a) resolve Paul's ARM problem discussed in this thread, b) *DRAMATICALLY* cut down on the size of that patchset. 95% of it is s/DMI/SYSFW/g. Paul -- what do you think? If I provided you a clean patchset in the next week or so would you be willing to implement the ARM functionality? Of course I would be more than willing to help ... We could push it together and see where that goes. P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
