| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20101101165701.2fc30368@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:57:01 +0000 From: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com> To: samu.p.onkalo@...ia.com Cc: ext Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, ext Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: sysfs and power management > I took a look to that. It seems that iio is more or less sysfs based. > There are ring buffers and event device which are chardev based > but still the data outside ring buffer and the control is sysfs based. IIO is sysfs dependant, heavyweight and makes no sense for some of the sysfs based drivers. IIO is also staging based and Linus already threw out the last attempt to unify these drivers sanely with an ALS layer - which was smaller, cleaner and better ! > By getting open and close from sysfs would be nice from the driver > point of view. However, I understand that this is just overhead for > majority of the cases. The alternative really is to end up with a parallel 'not quite sysfs' which is sysfs + open/close. My feeling is its cleaner to have a hook at the per device level (so we don't bloat the sysfs nodes at all) than have two copies of sysfs. Alan -- 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