[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080523141432.13dc9212@bluebox.local>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:14:32 +0200
From: "Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...utronix.de>
To: "Tom Spink" <tspink@...il.com>
Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <Uwe.Kleine-Koenig@...i.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>,
"Jan Altenberg" <jan.altenberg@...utronix.de>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Magnus Damm" <magnus.damm@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] UIO: Add a write() function to enable/disable
interrupts
Am Fri, 23 May 2008 13:00:17 +0100
schrieb "Tom Spink" <tspink@...il.com>:
> My initial idea was just a thought anyway, just to
> maintain a bit of extensibility if .write is ever needed for something
> else. :-)
Hi Tom,
thanks for your contribution, but for me it's just the other way round:
I'm glad write() gets a defined purpose before people do something
stupid with it. It's good to remember that all data exchange with the
device has to be done through the mapped memory. If this is not
possible, the hardware is no candidate for a UIO driver.
BTW, I wait for the first UIO driver which abuses this write()
function to write many different values to trigger different actions.
I wonder if I should restrict write() to the value 0 and 1...
Thanks,
Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists