On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 14:46 -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar_at_gmail.com> wrote: > > That's neither correct nor robust in a couple of way: > > 1) you have no guarantee a device unit will always give you the same resource. > this raises the following question: how can a device, today, figure > out which parent in a given devclass would give it access to resources > it needs. > > Say, you have gpiobus0 provided by a superio and gpiobus1 provided by > the chipset and a LED on the chipset's GPIO. Now, say gpiobus0 > attachment is conditional to some BIOS setting. How can you tell > gpioled(4) to attach on the chipset provided GPIO without hardcoding > unit number either way ? > > AFAIK, you can not. > > Even hints provided layout description is defeated. Each device in a > given devclass need to have a set of unique attribute to allow a child > to distinguish it from other potential parent in the same devclass... > > - Arnaud Talking about a child being unable to choose the correct parent seems to indicate that this whole problem is turned upside-down somehow; children don't choose their parents. Just blue-sky dreaming here on the fly... what we really have is a resource-management problem. A device comes along that needs a GPIO resource, how does it find and use that resource? Well, we have a resource manager, could that help somehow? Could a driver that provides access to GPIO somehow register its availability so that another driver can find and access it? The "resource" may be a callable interface, it doesn't really matter, I'm just wondering if the current rman stuff could be leveraged to help make the connection between unrelated devices. I think that implies that there would have to be something near the root of the hiearchy willing to be the owner/manager of dynamic resources. -- IanReceived on Fri Jul 06 2012 - 17:10:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:28 UTC