On 08/31/10 10:46, Alan Cox wrote: >> IIO which is currently in staging. > > Except we had ALS before that as a layer and Linus vetoed it. So there is > zero faith in IIO ever going anywhere. I have more faith - those developing it have limited time, but we will get there. (another plug for anyone interested to get involved!) IIRC Linus and others disliked ALS for two reasons... * It was too specific. They didn't want to fragment sensors types that much. * Userspace is used to dealing input and in some cases a light sensor can look like a switch. The first certainly doesn't apply to IIO, the second will be fixed via an input bridge. If Linus isn't happy we'll just have to work on convincing him. > > Instead we now have about ten different light sensor APIs to the point > developers are writing a toolkit userspace plugin for *each* sensor. I agree. This is a big problem. We have in the past talked about allowing interfaces to be standardized even if the underlying subsystem is still open to debate. We did openly debate the interface for some time with ALS... After we went over this with IIO we decided to match / extend hwmon where ever possible. Obviously that only covers sysfs interfaces, but it is a start. We also openly debate all new elements (and in theory at least keep the admittedly huge abi document up to date). A large set of doc updates and code fixes relating to the interface from Manuel Stahl went to Greg KH this morning as result of his work on general userspace tools. On the chrdev side of things life is much more complex as performance and overheads become an issue. Jonathan p.s. Matthias Nyman's email address is bouncing so I've removed it from the cc list. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
