On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:21:15PM +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> > I'm cautious about adding operational interfaces to sysfs because it
> > can be quite difficult to get the locking right. To begin with it
> > splits up a single interface into multiple files, any of which can
> > be held open by a
> I'm cautious about adding operational interfaces to sysfs because it
> can be quite difficult to get the locking right. To begin with it
> splits up a single interface into multiple files, any of which can
> be held open by a process. Then there is the question of ordering
> of operations when
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:30:36 +0100, Federico Vaga
wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 December 2012 15:09:25 Grant Likely wrote:
> > Not a good idea. sysfs is not a good place for operational
> > interfaces. Please use the spi character devices for direct
> > manipulation of the SPI configuration.
>
>
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:30:36 +0100, Federico Vaga federico.v...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2012 15:09:25 Grant Likely wrote:
Not a good idea. sysfs is not a good place for operational
interfaces. Please use the spi character devices for direct
manipulation of the SPI
I'm cautious about adding operational interfaces to sysfs because it
can be quite difficult to get the locking right. To begin with it
splits up a single interface into multiple files, any of which can
be held open by a process. Then there is the question of ordering
of operations when there
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:21:15PM +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
I'm cautious about adding operational interfaces to sysfs because it
can be quite difficult to get the locking right. To begin with it
splits up a single interface into multiple files, any of which can
be held open by a
On Wednesday 19 December 2012 15:09:25 Grant Likely wrote:
> Not a good idea. sysfs is not a good place for operational
> interfaces. Please use the spi character devices for direct
> manipulation of the SPI configuration.
Hello,
Can you explain why it is not a good idea? I do not understand;
On Wednesday 19 December 2012 15:09:25 Grant Likely wrote:
Not a good idea. sysfs is not a good place for operational
interfaces. Please use the spi character devices for direct
manipulation of the SPI configuration.
Hello,
Can you explain why it is not a good idea? I do not understand; what
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:20:08 +0100, Federico Vaga
wrote:
> This patch introduce the use of the sysfs attribute for the spidev
> configuration. This avoid the user to have a specific program which does
> ioctl() on spidev. The user can easily does cat (to read) and echo (to
> write) on the sysfs
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:20:08 +0100, Federico Vaga federico.v...@gmail.com
wrote:
This patch introduce the use of the sysfs attribute for the spidev
configuration. This avoid the user to have a specific program which does
ioctl() on spidev. The user can easily does cat (to read) and echo (to
10 matches
Mail list logo
