On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:53:09PM +0300, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > I can't wait for people to just realize this whole "new" subsystem can > > be replaced with UIO, but that's a topic for a different thread... > > Yes, that is true and that is why I am not sure why we are going > through all this staging exercise. > > As far as I understand we'd still need to have quite a bit of kernel > code so that we can safely program DMA controller (it does not look > like uio_dmem_genirq.c is sufficient as is for gasket needs), but that > should be solvable. I agree, it should be solvable, and much smaller and simpler than this whole large chunk of "subsystem+driver" code. But I'm not the one having to do this work, and it provides a bunch of easy cleanups for people looking to get into kernel development, so I don't mind :) But the "maintainers" should keep this in mind, as it is, this code is _not_ acceptable for the main kernel tree because of the UIO framework already present. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
