Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:34:22 -0700 | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | Re: driverfs is not for everything! (was: [PATCH] /proc/scsi/map) |
| |
> Is the device PHYSICALLY hooked up to the computer? If not, it shouldn't be > in devicefs.
What's "devicefs" -- some new filesystem? Or a mis/re-naming of "driverfs"? I assume you don't mean "devfs".
> The device tree (for which devicefs is the fs representation) was originally > meant to enable good device power management and configuration.
Surely a driver using IP-over-wire like iSCSI is no less deserving of appearing in "driverfs" than one whose driver uses custom-protocol-over-a-"wire" like USB, FireWire, FC, IR, SCSI, or Bluetooth? I don't see why some disks (for example) should deserve to be "more equal than others" -- and approved to be in driverfs.
Admittedly some of those may have few power management concerns beyond basic startup/shutdown sequencing. But the configuration management issues won't go away just because a driver talks to a device over some more generalized notion of wire. I suspect those are probably more important, long-term, than the power management hooks. I seem to recall other operating systems starting out with a device/driver tree well before power management existed, and was surprised when I noticed Linux didn't have one yet.
No, of course driverfs isn't for everything. But if it's not for all drivers, then what's it for -- just power management?
- Dave
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |