On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 02:11:44PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote: > > What other interface is asked for? And yes, I would push back, what is > > wrong with TTY here? It should be the most "low overhead" interface > > that works with common userspace tools that we have. > > I've been asking the same questions about the TTY limitations. > > Currently there's a driver providing a character device in development. > The developers are aware that they need to clarify and justify the need for a > new interface to get the driver upstream. My concerns and suggestions are noted. > > As I don't understand these TTY limitations I'll have to let people publishing the > driver do this part. I expect that the driver will clarify things. > > Anyway, I rather support them and work on providing the infrastructure needed > to write such a driver, and give them the opportunity to implement whatever is needed. Don't add frameworks for no users. Making this a char driver is not going to fly with me, I think I remember seeing old patches that tried to do this in the past that were submitted to some random Android kernel, and they just did not make any sense. It is easier to hide custom ioctls (i.e. custom syscalls) in a char driver than it is in a tty driver, so don't fall into that trap :) good luck! greg k-h
