On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 13:25 -0500, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christoffer Dall [mailto:christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:14 AM > > To: Alex Williamson > > Cc: Kim Phillips; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; a.motakis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; agraf@xxxxxxx; > > Yoder Stuart-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan > > Bharat-R65777; peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx; santosh.shukla@xxxxxxxxxx; > > kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform > > device > > > > Wouldn't a sysfs file to add compatibility strings to the vfio-platform > > driver make driver_match_device return true and make everyone happy? > > I had a similar thought. Why can't we do something like: > > echo "fsl,i2c" > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/vfio-platform/new_compatible > echo 12ce0000.i2c > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/vfio-platform/bind > > The first steps tell vfio-platform to register itself to handle > "fsl,i2c" compatible devices. The second step does the bind. Needing to specify the compatible is hacky (we already know what device we want to bind; why do we need to scrounge up more information than that, and add a new sysfs interface for extending compatible matches, and a more flexible data structure to back that up?), and is racy on buses that can hotplug (which driver gets the new device?). What's wrong with a non-vfio-specific flag that a driver can set, that indicates that the driver is willing to try to bind to any device on the bus if explicitly requested via the existing sysfs bind mechanism? -Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
