[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160822223223.398ee72d@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:32:23 +0100
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
"Dr . H . Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"open list:BLUETOOTH DRIVERS" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] UART slave device bus
> why would we even have it create a /dev/ttyX for these devices in the first place. Lets just not create an uevent for it and lets not create a dev_t for it.
Because if you don't it's a regression. It's not permissible to break
existing userspace.
> Internally the setup stage does a hciconfig hci0 up and it is already abstracted out that way. So there has been a lot of work in the Bluetooth subsystem to allow for this. That part is really solved.
So you'd create a kernel side tty struct and bind it to the tty_port on
hci0 up and drop it on hci0 down ?
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists