Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:09:48 +0200 | From | Dominik Brodowski <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] driver model and sysfs support for PCMCIA (1/3) |
| |
Hi Adam,
First of all I'd like to say that I'm glad you're taking interest in the PCMCIA core, and that your experience and patch-writing skills will surely be a valuable addition in the joint effort of transforming the PCMCIA subsystem to "kernel standards", e.g. hotplug, driver model and sysfs.
Second, you might not know about the linux-pcmcia list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pcmcia yet -- it's where most PCMCIA-core-in-2.{6,7} stuff is discussed, and it is quite low-traffic. Please CC this list on PCMCIA-core-in-2.{6,7} matters in future.
Third, about your patches: - I like many ideas in your patches -- large parts of them, though, are "double work" as similar things have already been submitted (by me) to Russell on the linux-pcmcia mailing list. What's missing in my current patches [proof-of-concepts do exist and had been announced both on lkml and on said linux-pcmcia list, though] is the exporting of product and manufactor ID and "vers_1" strings, because that needs better resource handling. - the resource_ready handling is "racy", at least. Resources can disappear again. - what I don't like in your patches is that they add an aditional "layer" and thus additional complexity on top of PCMCIA. It already has a multitude of structs with different lifetime rules. Your additions don't make it easier to simplify this complexity. That's why my patchsets [*] try to reduce the complexity first, add struct pcmcia_device next, and reduce complexity by merging other stuff into struct pcmcia_device in the third step. I'd need to re-check whether the step (1) you're leaving out does _not_ cause lifetime headaches and races in strange circumstances [and I don't mean PCMCIA net drivers here, as they're in a comparably good shape.]
Dominik
[*] these patchsets have been announced in these messages: 1) http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-pcmcia/2004-May/000877.html 2) http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-pcmcia/2004-May/000878.html 3) http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-pcmcia/2004-May/000880.html 4) http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-pcmcia/2004-May/000881.html 5) http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-pcmcia/2004-May/000882.html [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |