From: Mathieu Poirier <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <email@example.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/tty: Folding Android's keyreset driver in sysRQ
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:53:01 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5046783D.email@example.com> (raw)
On 12-08-31 05:22 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 04:57:04PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> On 12-08-31 04:41 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:02:27PM +0100, 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.
>>> It does not matter if it is built in or not, /sys/module/XXX/parameters
>>> is still there, and while havig it in kernel is "easy" you could as
>>> easily stuff needed data into a sysfs attribute during booting.
>>> And we should be able to get this from DT even without the platform
>>> device (this was the next step, wasn't it?).
>> Correct - my hope was to get the main functionality accepted before
>> adding DT support. Do you think the lack of DT support is a blocker for
>> acceptance ? Please confirm.
> No, lack of DT is not a blocker, but I am unconvinced that we need
> platform device.
A platform device is really easy to spin-off in a board file and once it
is there you don't have to worry about other loose ends to tie in before
the solution is functional.
I don't mind supplementing the current proposition with a module
parameter interface to get the "key_down" and "key_up" sequences.
Which brings us to the "reset_fn()" function - in my opinion it offers
significant advantages and should be kept in the design. What I'm not
so clear about is on the implementation. Should it be kept as part of a
platform data or be implemented as a notifier as suggested by Alan. I
am looking for guidance here and suggestions are encouraged.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-04 21:53 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 [this message]
2012-09-04 22:01 ` Alan Cox
2012-08-31 22:51 ` Mathieu Poirier
2012-09-01 19:18 ` Colin Cross
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).