From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@ameritech.net>
To: Sau Dan Lee <danlee@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Tuukka Toivonen <tuukkat@ee.oulu.fi>,
Andries Brouwer <aeb@cwi.nl>, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serio.c: dynamically control serio ports bindings via procfs (Was: [RFC/RFT] Raw access to serio ports)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 01:58:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200406030158.42703.dtor_core@ameritech.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xb7hdtt3zs4.fsf@savona.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
On Thursday 03 June 2004 01:45 am, Sau Dan Lee wrote:
> >>>>> "Dmitry" == Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@ameritech.net> writes:
>
> Dmitry> So we have several options - if we adopt procfs based
> Dmitry> solution now we will have to maintain it for very long
> Dmitry> time, along with competing sysfs implementation. Dropping
> Dmitry> one kernel parameter which will never be widely used is
> Dmitry> much easier, IMO.
>
> >> It's not just the matter of dropping one kernel parameter.
> >> The procfs support, _already implemented_, allows one to
> >> fine-tune the binding between serio ports and devices, which is
> >> a new and useful feature that your kernel parameter doesn't
> >> provide.
>
> Dmitry> What I was trying to say is serio and input system will
> Dmitry> have sysfs support,
>
> Then, why are you saying "dropping one kernel parameter"?
I am referring to possibly dropping i0842.raw once sysfs is implemeted
as then user will be able to rebind another driver to a port, like
your procfs patch does.
>
>
>
> >> Can you unbind the keyboard port? Can you bind/unbind any of
> >> the AUX ports *dynamically* without reloading the i8042 module?
> >> These
>
> Dmitry> No, and I was not trying to. It is just a stop-gap measure
> Dmitry> to help end users to get their PS/2 devices working until
> Dmitry> we have proper infrastructure in place.
>
> I think direct access to PS/2 devices must stay there for the whole
> 2.6.x. It's unreasonable to assume that all existing _and working_
> drivers will be kernelized.
>
>
>
> >> sysfs looks good for simple parameters: integers, strings.
> >> For anything more complicated (sets, graphs), I don't see it
> >> fit (yet). Unfortunately, the serio port<-->device relation is
> >> already a graph (1 to n).
> >>
> >> I'd like to see how you implement the device<-->handler binding
> >> in input.c using sysfs.
>
> Dmitry> Sysfs provides all the same features as procfs (I mean you
> Dmitry> write read/write methods and have them do whatever you
> Dmitry> please) but it also has benefits of your stuff integrating
> Dmitry> with the rest of devices into a hierarchy.
>
> It's different. Procfs is more versatile. I can stuff in my own
> struct file_operations to do more than just read() and write(). I can
> even stuff in my own struct inode_operations if I want more.
>
> Another problem with sysfs is the "social" discipline as mentioned in
> Documentation/filesystems/sysfs.txt:
>
> Attributes should be ASCII text files, preferably with only
> one value per file. It is noted that it may not be efficient
> to contain only value per file, so it is socially acceptable
> to express an array of values of the same type.
>
> Mixing types, expressing multiple lines of data, and doing
> fancy formatting of data is heavily frowned upon. Doing these
> things may get you publically humiliated and your code
> rewritten without notice.
>
> It is common in procfs to format the output nicely, and to display
> screenfuls of information. This is to be frowned upon in sysfs.
> Currently implementations of sysfs interface do follow this rule
> nicely.
>
> Unfortunately, the connection between devices and drivers (either in
> the serio.c interface or in the input.c interface) is a graph. It is
> more complicated than an array. Yes, you can represent a graph with a
> matrix or an adjacency list, both representable as arrays in one way
> or another. Nothing in a digital computer cannot be represented by an
> array of bits anyway! But useability of the interface must not be
> ignored.
>
I am not sure where you see the problem - consider a PCI bus and all PCI
devices and all drivers tyhat currently present in kernel. They are using
the new driver model and sysfs and they come together quite nicely.
--
Dmitry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-06-03 6:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-02 19:09 Dmitry Torokhov
2004-06-03 5:54 ` Sau Dan Lee
2004-06-03 6:16 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2004-06-03 6:45 ` Sau Dan Lee
2004-06-03 6:58 ` Dmitry Torokhov [this message]
2004-06-03 7:22 ` Sau Dan Lee
2004-06-03 7:39 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2004-06-03 7:47 ` Sau Dan Lee
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-06-02 9:49 [RFC/RFT] Raw access to serio ports (2/2) Sau Dan Lee
2004-06-02 12:33 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2004-06-02 17:24 ` [PATCH] serio.c: dynamically control serio ports bindings via procfs (Was: [RFC/RFT] Raw access to serio ports) Sau Dan Lee
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200406030158.42703.dtor_core@ameritech.net \
--to=dtor_core@ameritech.net \
--cc=aeb@cwi.nl \
--cc=danlee@informatik.uni-freiburg.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tuukkat@ee.oulu.fi \
--cc=vojtech@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®