On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 21:13 +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:04:15PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:43:30 -0700 > > Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 01:32:38PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > > > > It sounds more hackish to me to invent some 'generic' flag to solve a > > > very specific case. What you're suggesting would let users specify that > > > a serial driver should handle a NIC hardware, no? That sounds much much > > > worse to me. > > > > I thought that was the nature of VFIO drivers...it's a 'meta-' driver, > > used for enabling userspace drivers at large. > > > Yes, vfio is a meta driver, therefore it needs to be able to do > something special, but the generic driver/device/bus matching framework > doesn't need an extra generic feature allowing you to bind driver X to > device Y for all combinations of X and Y depending on some flag... Not all combinations of X and Y. Only instances of X that advertise that this is OK. > Someone please correct me if there are more use cases for this and this > is in fact worth a generic solution. Note that the wildcard match that I suggested in the e-mail I just sent would likely be implemented by the bus match code -- not by generic driver model code. It would still be less intrusive than implementing a dynamic match mechanism for each bus type (and for device tree, ACPI, etc in the case of platform bus). -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
