On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 19:28:28 +0100 Loic Poulain wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 19:05, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 03 Feb 2021 09:45:06 +0530 Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > The current patchset only supports QMI channel so I'd request you to > > > review the chardev node created for it. The QMI chardev node created > > > will be unique for the MHI bus and the number of nodes depends on the > > > MHI controllers in the system (typically 1 but not limited). > > > > If you want to add a MHI QMI driver, please write a QMI-only driver. > > This generic "userspace client interface" driver is a no go. Nobody will > > have the time and attention to police what you throw in there later. > > Think it should be seen as filtered userspace access to MHI bus > (filtered because not all channels are exposed), again it's not > specific to MHI, any bus in Linux offers that (i2c, spi, usb, serial, > etc...). It will not be specific to QMI, since we will also need it > for MBIM (modem control path), AT commands, and GPS (NMEA frames), all > these protocols are usually handled by userspace tools and not linked > to any internal Linux framework, so it would be better not having a > dedicated chardev for each of them. The more people argue for this backdoor interface the more distrustful of it we'll become. Keep going at your own peril.
