[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131002203735.GA10871@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:37:35 -0700
From: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
Yoder Stuart-B08248 <B08248@...escale.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"a.motakis@...tualopensystems.com" <a.motakis@...tualopensystems.com>,
"agraf@...e.de" <agraf@...e.de>,
Wood Scott-B07421 <B07421@...escale.com>,
Sethi Varun-B16395 <B16395@...escale.com>,
Bhushan Bharat-R65777 <R65777@...escale.com>,
"peter.maydell@...aro.org" <peter.maydell@...aro.org>,
"santosh.shukla@...aro.org" <santosh.shukla@...aro.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform device
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:43:30AM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > What's wrong with a non-vfio-specific flag that a driver can set, that
> > indicates that the driver is willing to try to bind to any device on the
> > bus if explicitly requested via the existing sysfs bind mechanism?
> >
> It sounds more hackish to me to invent some 'generic' flag to solve a
> very specific case. What you're suggesting would let users specify that
> a serial driver should handle a NIC hardware, no? That sounds much much
> worse to me.
You can do that today, with any PCI driver (or USB driver as well), just
use the bind/unbind files in sysfs and you had better "know" what you
are doing...
--
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