libi2c: Claiming driver slot failed
gedare at rtems.org
Mon Aug 12 13:52:03 UTC 2013
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:
> Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 2013-08-12 05:10, Chris Johns wrote:
>>> Nick Withers wrote:
>>>> It seems to me like there's an inversion of the App -> BSP -> RTEMS
>>>> abstraction going on here, where the app effectively needs to know
>>>> "black-box" details of the BSP, making maintenence and portability more
>>>> difficult and error prone than needs be...?
>>> I would like to see the drivers and the device table become unlimited
>>> just like
>>> the other unlimited resources in the kernel. The value becomes an
>>> allocation unit.
>> We should not start adding new tables, instead we should get rid of
>> them. Propagating this major/minor number concept down to the lowest
>> implementation levels is a major design problem from my point of view.
>> For drivers I would use IMFS generic nodes (e.g. a RTEMS device file
>> It is possible to strip down IMFS to get a directory + generic nodes
>> subset with very low overhead. It is also possible to use static only
>> memory (no malloc()) for this.
> This is a much better idea. You have my support for this.
+1 would this be like Linux's sysfs?
> rtems-users mailing list
> rtems-users at rtems.org
More information about the users