Re: [PATCH] Allow PPS on CTS pin and non-RS232 UARTs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:36:39AM +0100, Mathieu Peyrega wrote:
> Le lundi 20 décembre 2021 à 16:43 +0100, Greg KH a écrit :
> > On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 04:57:56PM +0100, Mathieu Peyrega wrote:
> > > Le vendredi 03 décembre 2021 à 14:11 +0100, Greg KH a écrit :
> > > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 11:56:10AM +0100, Mathieu Peyrega wrote:
> > > > > 
> > I don't fully understand the point. Isn't the existing pps_ldisc
> > > module
> > > already affecting the whole system ? (with it's builtin fixed
> > > "options"). How different tunable options such as the proposal make
> > > things fundamentally different ? Still I agree that per device
> > > settings
> > > would be better.
> > 
> > Per device settings are required, this would prevent multiple devices
> > working in the same system, one using the existing line discipline
> > functionality, and one with your new changes.
> 
> Is this per device settings requierement valid also for a new line
> discipline module or is it acceptable if a new "module level settable"
> linee discipline module has also a global behaviour (as current one)
> ?If per tty device setting is requiered pointers/doc on possible
> exemples/mecanismes to achieve this are welcome.

If you make this a new line discipline, that is fine, as you can set
each tty device to have their own discipline.

But do not have options for that line discipline, on a module-basis,
that way will not work (think about multiple devices all using the same
line discipline.)

> > Try this as a new line discipline, should be much easier and simpler
> > overall for everyone.
> 
> I have been working a little on this already, was waiting for list
> comments/answers to proceed further.
> Is there a prefered name as the module is mostly a clone of the pps-
> ldisc current one one with first patch changes ? I went for ppsex-ldisc 
> for now.
> Is it Ok to share & modify the C structures of pps-ldisc (especially
> tty_ldisc_ops as per initially proposed patch) or should a full new set
> also be added ?

I do not know, let's see what you think would work and post that and we
can go from there.

thanks,

greg k-h



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux PPP]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linmodem]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Kernel for ARM]

  Powered by Linux