On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:15:26AM -0700, Todd Poynor wrote: > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > My own preference is to rewrite the apex driver entirely in-kernel and > pull in its userspace parts here. If I don't receive significant > pushback on that I'll start doing that real soon. Why would we object to that? _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
