On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 09:43:02AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Thanks Jean for summing up the questions :) > I again agree. Which means that Himanshu is still 3 steps away from > getting his patch accepted: > * Explaining why the current sysfs interface is insufficient and can't > be fixed. AFAIK, the current sysfs interface is to read standard attributes from the device. My reasoning is: 1. This will give hwmon devices to have their "dev" in their sysfs folder as like other classes and in turn be visible in /dev by mdev or udev. 2. Implementing IOCTL if required. I know that kernel hackers believe they are "backdoors" and "can't be done right" but sometimes there isn't any get away with them. I don't know when their support will be completely removed. Rather, I see that instead of deprecation, new IOCTL vectors like compat_ioctl have been introduced. > * Getting official device node numbers registered for hwmon use. Jean, as long as drivers get major device numbers on the fly, I don't think this is a requirement. Isn't it? > * Defining an API for these device nodes. My idea is just this: 1. Get a major number from kernel on the fly. 2. During probing, for each device, call "hwmon_device_register_numbered" and let mdev create a /dev node for it. I don't say that this interface be imposed on drivers. If they want they can still call "hwmon_device_register" if they don't want to implement standard ioctl, read, write calls. > Before then, there's no point in resending this patch, it will be > rejected. > Thanks for reviewing. These are my thoughts. If you guys think the reasoning isn't strong enough to get this in mainline, I am happy to accept that :) At least I know what can get rejected for sure and I am happy to build a stack of rejected patches for that. :) -Himanshu _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
