[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160822235414.4b2f8712@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 23:54:14 +0100
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
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>,
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
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:17 +0200
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> On Mon 2016-08-22 22:32:23, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Well... it would be good to do the right thing, at least in the places
> where we can.
>
> Yes, renumbering people's serials is bad, OTOH for new platforms it
> would be nice not to expose ttyS15 which can only return -EBUSY.
That would still be a regression. Not everyone even uses the kernel
bluetooth stack. It would only return EBUSY if you had done an "up" on it
via the direct bluetooth stack.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists