On 09/10/2014 08:03 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > Hi Boaz, > <> >> We please need to start somewhere, no? > > Sure, but you used the operative term "start", as in you already > expect to enhance this capability down the road, right? > Yes > It's fine to dismiss this request_firmware() based approach, but don't > mis-characterize it in the process. With regards to describing device > boundaries, a bus-descriptor-blob handed to the kernel is a superset > of the capability provided by the kernel command line. It can be > injected statically at compile time, or dynamically loaded from the > initrd or the rootfs. It has the added benefit of being flexible to > change whereas the kernel command line is a more permanent contract > that we will need to maintain compatibility with in perpetuity. > initrd or rootfs means for me "make install". But I want my fedora to never make or install. Pre-compiled binary blobs including rootfs and it needs to work. > If you already see this bus description as a "starting" point, then I > think we need an interface that is more amenable to ongoing change, > that's not the kernel-command-line. > module-command-line. a module can be loaded via udev and/or module param can be changed dynamically on the fly. And also be specified via kernel-command-line. So it is much less permanent contract API than "rootfs" And yes, I intend to add more interfaces. And No! I do not intend to ever extend this module-param interface, that I can see. This one is that, which it is right now. Later a sysfs/ objects will enable dynamic management of devices. So both: initial device list on load - more devices or removal on the fly, unload all on unload. This is my plan. So right now I do not see this map= need ever change in the future. Only more interfaces added in (the very near) future. Thanks Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
