Hi, On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:54:14PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:17 +0200 > Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon 2016-08-22 22:32:23, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > > why would we even have it create a /dev/ttyX for these devices in the first place. Lets just not create an uevent for it and lets not create a dev_t for it. > > > > > > Because if you don't it's a regression. It's not permissible to break > > > existing userspace. > > > > Well... it would be good to do the right thing, at least in the places > > where we can. > > > > Yes, renumbering people's serials is bad, OTOH for new platforms it > > would be nice not to expose ttyS15 which can only return -EBUSY. > > That would still be a regression. Not everyone even uses the kernel > bluetooth stack. It would only return EBUSY if you had done an "up" > on it via the direct bluetooth stack. So it returns EBUSY when uart-bus is used. Since uart-bus is about hardwired devices that's basically always. Also I wonder how relevant your "I want to handle all UART stuff out of kernel" scenario is for uart-bus, which is about in-kernel UART drivers. -- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
