On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 07:58:25PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > In other words, given that the usage here is correct, is there some > reason that miscdevice is still a poor design fit? Is cdev_device_add() > a better choice here, for design reasons? cdev's have become so easy to use I don't see the few loc reduction to add miscdev that valuable. IMHO > Also, is there any change that could or should be made to miscdevice, > that you have in mind? No, it is just a legacy interface that was simplifies drivers that create a single char dev in static data that is widely misused. IOW I wouldn't add new miscdevs. Jason
