On 09:11 Wed 06 Mar , Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 09:01:18AM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On 08:43 Wed 06 Mar , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:35:53PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > fs/devfs.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > include/driver.h | 1 + > > > > 2 files changed, 71 insertions(+) > > > > > > What's your usecase with this patch? Telling me could increase my > > > motivation applying it. > > I use it to handle boot device and tty today > > > > so the application part does not care about the real hardware they always have > > the same device (file) to search > > This is in the same league as I wanted to do with persistent device > names. We should think about this in a more general way. > > > > > > > One thing I see with this patch that the next thing would be to add > > > directory support to debugfs in which case we might be better off > > > adding real device nodes and remove the devfs like we have it now > > > completely. > > yeah I've the idea to rewrite the devfs completly and the ramfs too > > > > as the ramfs should be at vfs level so the devfs will nearly implement nothing > > vfs level? You would have to implement one first, we do not have a vfs > level at all ;) yeah because today we duplicate too much code so with this we wil reduce the size of barebox Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
