On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:01:44AM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 09:41:25AM +0200, Hans J. Koch wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 08:19:18PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 06:00:29PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > The need for an industrialio subsystem was discussed in > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/20/135 > > > > > > The name is really bad, this sounds like something for doing large > > > scale industrial process control. > > > > Well, it says "Industrial I/O". To me, this means it handles I/O devices > > typically found in industrial applications. > > Yes, industrial is generally process control of manufacturing > processes which in my view is making this sound like it is limiting > the field of operations. OK, I agree. > > All the applications we would currently need are things like > handheld PDA type devices which are hardly 'industrial' or small > consumer measurement systems. Well, though the _use_ of such devices might not be "industrial", _technically_ they are very similar to embedded systems found in automation or other industrial equipment. Many of these devices (all that have mmappable memory) can be handled with a UIO driver, but for the rest (mostly stuff connected to serial busses), it's important to have a subsystem in the kernel. I really don't care too much about its name. BTW, before UIO was first published, its internal name was "Industrial I/O" ;-) Thanks, Hans
