Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: UIO device name | From | Joakim Tjernlund <> | Date | Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:05:51 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 08:57 +1000, Ben Nizette wrote: > On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 14:38 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 20:47 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > > > > > > > Nonsense, there is nothing wrong with UIO's interface as it is today. > > > It is no different from sound cards, cdroms, and so on. If you want the > > > > It is different, cdroms and audio are named differently. If they were > > using UIO they would all be named /dev/uio%d. > > > > Consider uio_cif and uio_smx, is it impossible to image that such > > devices could use another name such as crypto_smx%d instead? > > > > My system does use uio_smx and uio_pdrv, they both appear as /dev/uioX. > This to me is just like having /dev/hda, /dev/hdb rather > than /dev/myrootpartition, /dev/somebackupspace or whatever. In this > case you do have a /dev/cdrom symlink but it's just that, a symlink set > up by scripts. The kernel doesn't (and shouldn't) make that naming > decision for you. > > My software just walks /sys/class/uio/uioX/name, finds the one which > matches then opens the corresponding device. No scripts needed, no > in-kernel hackery or policy making, just the interface used as the maker > intended. What's your problem with this approach?
My problem is this, uio is a generic container for any user space device and by itself it doesn't mean much. You put some protocol driver on top of uio, such as uio_smx, to make it mean something.
Comparing uio with hdX is wrong as hdX means something, it is a block device for a disk. A better comparison would be if all kernel devices were named kio%d and you had to scan /sys to find the name hdX.
Look at the spi subsystem, the protocol drivers name them self.
Jocke
| |