[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <50BB8F43.4010208@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 19:26:27 +0200
From: Eli Billauer <eli.billauer@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] New driver: Xillybus generic interface for FPGA
(programmable logic)
On 11/30/2012 06:32 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>> > >>+static struct class *xillybus_class;
>>>>
>>> > >Why not just use the misc interface instead of your own class?
>>>
>> > When Xillybus is used, the whole system's mission is usually around
>> > it (e.g. it's a computer doing data acquisition through the Xillybus
>> > pipes). So giving it a high profile makes sense, I believe. Besides,
>> > a dozen of device files are not rare.
>>
> It is no problem to create dozens of misc devices. It makes your driver
> smaller, contain less code that I have to audit and you have to ensure
> you got right, and it removes another user of 'struct class' which we
> are trying to get rid of anyway. So please, move to use a misc device.
>
>
It has just occurred to me that DYNAMIC_MINORS is 64
(drivers/char/misc.c), so I guess that limits the number of misc devices
that can be generated, at least with dynamically allocated minors. I
previously mentioned "a dozen" as the number of devices, but I've
already run tests with 100+ devices, and I can also think of a sane
application for that.
So if I understood the situation correctly, it looks like using misc
devices will create a limitation which will be reached sooner or later.
Any suggestion what to do?
Thanks in advance,
Eli
--
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