On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:26:04PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:33:24PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > While this is nicer than the DT solution because of its accurate hardware > > representation, it's still not perfect because you might not have access to the > > DT, or you might be driving a completely generic device (such as a > > microcontroller) that might be used for something else in a different > > context/board. > > Greg, you're copied on this because this seems to be a generic problem > that should perhaps be solved at a driver model level - having a way to > bind userspace access to devices that we don't otherwise have a driver > for. The subsystem could specify the UIO driver to use when no other > driver is available. That doesn't really work. I've been talking to the ACPI people about this, and the problem is "don't otherwise have a driver for" is an impossible thing to prove, as you never know when a driver is going to be loaded from userspace. You can easily bind drivers to devices today from userspace, why not just use the built-in functionality you have today if you "know" that there is no driver for this hardware. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html