On 2012-10-23, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 06:45:51PM +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> FWIW, in some products we're planning that will require support for
>> various industrial serial protocols, I'm leaning towards abandoning
>> the tty driver approach and writing a stand-alone character device
>> driver. The byte-stream oriented tty/line-discipline layer just
>> doesn't fit well when dealing with frame-oriented industrial protocols
>> that depend on things like 9th bit addressing and detecting
>> sub-millisecond inter-byte timeouts. When I add in the lack of
>> long-term stability in the tty API it seems like it might not be such
>> a bad idea to give up trying to make the tty abstraction fit a use
>> case that's just nothing like a teletype.
>
> What do you mean "lack of long-term stability"? The userspace tty api
> hasn't ever changed or broken.
I meant the in-kernel api.
> Don't focus on in-kernel api,
It's my job to focus on the in-kernel api.
> that's always going to change, no matter what interface you choose to
> use in the kernel.
Maybe it's just my perception, but the the tty API seems to change a
more than the plain character-device API.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I wish I was on a
at Cincinnati street corner
gmail.com holding a clean dog!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
