![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com> writes: > This is *exactly* what we don't want to do! The whole point of this > thread is to prevent the need to use /dev/mem and /dev/kmem for > anything except debugging. Look, it's me who's using that and I tell you I want just that :-) > Ewww, I certainly wouldn't trust a binary statically-linked binary > program that mmaps /dev/mem or /dev/kmem And would you trust a binary which doesn't have "/dev/mem" string in it? Anyway you can compile it yourself if you want. It's not about trust, it's about simplicity and robustness. > #! /bin/sh > cp firmware.bin /lib/firmware/some_firmware_file.bin > echo -n eeprom_load_driver >/sys/device/$PCI_ID/bind > echo -n 1 >/sys/device/$PCI_ID/unbind > > Simple, obviously correct, and uses a nice reuseable driver too! Sure. If the driver is loaded/available. What if, say, the distribution you use doesn't have it? > No! That would be even worse! You're then having userspace poke at > the driver while a kernel driver is loaded, which is *exactly* what X > is getting into trouble for doing. So what? The driver and EEPROM updater don't conflict. > If you want to add firmware > update capability, add it to the preexisting primary driver. It will not load with blank or invalid EEPROM :-) > No, not an "enable" interface. In this case the kernel should do > basically all of the poking at PCI resources for you. Because? > If you > _really_ want to do that kind of update in userspace, write a stub > driver which just enables the device on bind, disables it on unbind, > and mmap and write to the sysfs "rom" file. It has nothing to do with any "ROM". -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-05-08 00:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||