Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Shawn Starr <> | | Subject | Re: Crazy Idea: Replacing /dev using sysfs over time | | Date | Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:02:11 -0400 |
| |
Or instead of even needing major/minor we just have:
/sys/class/sound `- - audio0 | | - raw `-- dsp0 | | - raw Then instead, let udev know that audio0 and dsp0 belong to one sound card device or have it report this in sysfs:
/dev/class/sound `--sound0 | | -- dev | -- device -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00 `-- audio0 |- device -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.5 `--dsp0 | -device -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.5 `--mixer0 `--sound1 | | -dev | -- device -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00:1a `--audio0 |- device --> ../../../devices/pci0000:00:1a/0000:00:1c.6 And so forth.
Then map sound0 devices in /dev/dsp0 /dev/mixer0 /dev/audio0 with udev
*NOTE: I am not avocating devfs, but more of keeping sysfs as the primary structure for devices.
On September 26, 2005 19:28, Shawn Starr wrote: > I wonder if in the future, we can just eliminate /dev altogether (or map it > via sysfs until older apps move away from /dev). It just seems we could > represent major,minor in a sysfs node: > /sys/class/block/ > `-- sda > > |-- sda1 > | > | - major > | - minor > | - raw > | > |-- sda2 > | > | - major > | - minor > | - raw > > `-- sda3 > > and so forth, or under a different branch elsewhere. > > Does it make sense? Logical? Illogical? Do we really need /dev other than > for historical/legacy purposes? > > Shawn. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |