Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:51:46 -0600 | From | Mathieu Poirier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/tty: Folding Android's keyreset driver in sysRQ |
| |
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() ?
Thanks, Mathieu.
> > Alan >
| |