On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazz...@free-electrons.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:18:43 +0200, Baruch Siach wrote: > >> > Therefore the whole idea of writing a "generic template kernel driver" >> > is doomed to fail, as it is simply not possible. >> >> To me the significance of this template driver is not as a demonstration of >> IO >> operations that are, as you correctly point out, subsystem specific. This >> driver uses the concepts of file operations and platform driver, I guess, >> because they are easy to emulate. But these are only means to demonstrate >> common driver programming patterns and mechanisms like interrupt handling, >> tasklets, workqueues, completion, etc. Details like DT binding, deprecated >> /proc use, as well as some other issues, are fixable in my opinion. > > Still it doesn't make this driver really useful as a template. The best > templates are quite certainly the existing drivers in drivers/<foo>/, > where <foo> in the subsystem you are writing a driver for. >
To add some value to this argument, video4linux subsystem has a couple of template drivers -fully maintained- called vivi and mem2mem_testdev. These are the starting point of any v4l developer. Adding more drivers like these to other subsystems -mainlined, of course- would be more worthy than maintaining a general template of them off-tree. Just my two cents, Ezequiel. _______________________________________________ Celinux-dev mailing list Celinux-dev@lists.celinuxforum.org https://lists.celinuxforum.org/mailman/listinfo/celinux-dev
