[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACxGe6tm1AZo72qJ2Mq7RNAU=Z5Y9T3Dn0L1YNuMFFbExC9v5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:40:55 +0000
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] of: remove /proc/device-tree
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 03/20/2013 09:51 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> The same data is now available in sysfs, so we can remove the code
>>> that exports it in /proc and replace it with a symlink to the sysfs
>>> version.
>>>
>>> Tested on versatile qemu model and mpc5200 eval board. More testing
>>> would be appreciated.
>>
>> I would suggest testing with lshw in particular. That's the only
>> /proc/device-tree user I've come across.
>
> kexec is another one. Not to mention various vendor scripts that aren't
> necessarily public.
>
> Don't such things also fall under the "we do not break userspace
> compatibility - ever" rule?
Correct. I've got no intention of applying this without testing the
major users first.
g.
--
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