On Wed 2008-09-17 11:04:05, Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 09:45:21PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Fri 2008-09-12 09:59:47, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 01:35:54AM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > Shem Multinymous wrote: > > > > >> That reduction comes because input device supports poll and > > > > >> sysfs_notify_event() does about the same thing. The uesrland daemon > > > > >> can just poll on a node and read data nodes when poll event on the > > > > >> node triggeres. > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > There's another issue with the current sysfs interface, though: hdapsd > > > > > needs to read (x,y,timestamp) tuples, whereas sysfs provides just x > > > > > and y in separate attributes which cannot be read atomically together. > > > > > We can add a sysfs file with "x y timestamp" readouts, though this is > > > > > unusual for sysfs (and certainly incompatible with hwmon). > > > > > > > > Yes, right. Forgot about the atomicity part altogether. Thanks for > > > > bringing it up. > > > > > > > > >> Unloading heads will be simple. Just echoing timeout in ms to sysfs > > > > >> nodes, so I don't think it's a good idea to push out actual unloading > > > > >> to another process especially as fork doesn't inherit mlockall. > > > > > > > > > > I had in mind another daemon listening for "unload now" events, so no > > > > > forking needed. > > > > > This second daemon might make sense if we push the logic of deciding > > > > > *which* disks to unload into userspace, since this logic is the same > > > > > for the ThinkPad style and the HP style. > > > > > > > > Hmmm... I can't (yet) see the benefit of having two separate userland > > > > daemons. > > > > > > > > >> On a related note, is there any plan to merge tp_smapi to mainline? > > > > >> It seems you put a lot of work into it and I don't really see why it > > > > >> should stay out of tree. > > > > > > > > > > The only issue I'm aware of is finding a reasonably-named maintainer. > > > > > On the technical side, the reviews on my lkml submission of > > > > > thinkpad_ec+hdaps seemed good and all technical comments are since > > > > > addressed. The code has been stable, well-tested and packaged by major > > > > > distros for years. > > > > > > > > Cool, can you please post the patch to the lkml and cc Greg > > > > Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton > > > > <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and me? > > > > > > Sorry, but no, I can't accept this code as it is coming from a "known > > > anonymous" person containing information that it is not known where it > > > came from. > > > > So... what are you worried about? > > Code created by access to specs that were not allowed to be published in > GPL form by someone who wants to remain anonymous. That anonymous person may have problems if they signed NDA. I don't think they did, they even list the sources: * The embedded controller on ThinkPad laptops has a non-standard interface, * where LPC channel 3 of the H8S EC chip is hooked up to IO ports * 0x1600-0x161F and implements (a special case of) the H8S LPC protocol. * The EC LPC interface provides various system management services (currently * known: battery information and accelerometer readouts). This driver * provides access and mutual exclusion for the EC interface. * * The LPC protocol and terminology is documented here: * "H8S/2104B Group Hardware Manual", * http://documentation.renesas.com/eng/products/mpumcu/rej09b0300_2140bhm.pdf H8S chip seems to be documented. ...even if you are right, why is it problem for _us_. We are not covered by NDAs we did not sign. So can you list your concerns for _us_? Copyrights? Patents? Trade secrets? Contracts? > If people want to get this kind of code into the tree, they can write a > new driver from scratch, based on public information on these chips. > And you will have to defend exactly where this information was found > as These are rather bigger requirements than signed-off-by and then what Novell legal people require before putting stuff in distribution. So you should explain why this bigger requirements are warranted. > you can not do it by information found in this "tainted" driver, sorry, > that's not a legally viable way forward. As far as I can see, using any information I find anywhere is perfectly legal for writing a driver, as long as I don't sign & violate a NDA. sourceforge.net is rather well-known, public source of information. Why should it be treated specially?! Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
