archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mathieu Poirier <>
To: Alan Cox <>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/tty: Folding Android's keyreset driver in sysRQ
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:51:46 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 12-08-31 04:02 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> Why do we need to involve a platform device and not use, for example, a module
>>> parameter, that could be set up from userspace?
>> The platform device comes from the original design and was included to
>> minimise the amount of changes in code that make use of the current
>> keyreset driver.
> The platform device is IMHO the right answer. In this class of devices
> the stuff is compiled in, the userspace is Android, there are no modules
> and there is no reason for it to be configurable.
>> I am definitely willing to explore the possibility of adding module
>> parameter to complement the platform data but again, to avoid impacting
>> board code I'm in favour of keeping the platform data/device - get back
>> to me if you disagree.
>> Thinking back on this it may be better to call 'platform_driver_probe'
>> rather than 'platform_driver_register'.  That way one wouldn't have to
>> instantiate a platform_device.
>>> Also, why do we need reset_fn() and not simply invoke SysRq-B handler
>>> that should call ctrl_alt_del() for us?
>> The reset_fn() gives an implementer the chance of calling some custom
>> function before the reset sequence is started and in my opinion should

I did not express myself clearly - with reset_fn() a system can do
whatever it wants when a specific series of keys is pressed.

Granted that the next steps are most likely converging toward rebooting
the system - but it may not be right away and depending on the
circumstances a reboot could be avoided altogether.

> So why wouldn't that already be using the reset notifiers ?

I am not familiar with the "reset notifiers" that have been referred to
but a little bit of research indicate that a registering subsystem gets
notified when the event of interest (in this case a reboot) happens.

I understand your proposition here but aren't we loosing flexibility in
what we can achieve when the event has been triggered ?

What do you think of adding a keyreset event that would be fired (and
caught by a registering subsystem) instead of calling reset_fn() ?


> Alan

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-08-31 22:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-08-30 22:30 [PATCH v2] drivers/tty: Folding Android's keyreset driver in sysRQ mathieu.poirier
2012-08-30 23:01 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2012-08-31 21:52   ` Mathieu Poirier
2012-08-31 22:02     ` Alan Cox
2012-08-31 22:41       ` Dmitry Torokhov
2012-08-31 22:57         ` Mathieu Poirier
2012-08-31 23:22           ` Dmitry Torokhov
2012-09-04 21:53             ` Mathieu Poirier
2012-09-04 22:01               ` Alan Cox
2012-08-31 22:51       ` Mathieu Poirier [this message]
2012-09-01 19:18     ` Colin Cross

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).