Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi Alan, Am 24.01.2016 um 18:10 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes : >>> but by having only the >>> minimum necessary in the kernel. Unix >> >> I think you are confusing it with the goals of microkernels (e.g. Mach or >> Hurd). > > No and the quote below is from Doug McIlroy - who amongst other

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi Alan, Am 24.01.2016 um 18:10 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes : >>> but by having only the >>> minimum necessary in the kernel. Unix >> >> I think you are confusing it with the goals of microkernels (e.g. Mach or >> Hurd). > > No and the quote below is from Doug

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

> > but by having only the > > minimum necessary in the kernel. Unix > > I think you are confusing it with the goals of microkernels (e.g. Mach or > Hurd). No and the quote below is from Doug McIlroy - who amongst other thing invented pipes. > > > > "We used to sit around in the Unix Room

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

> > but by having only the > > minimum necessary in the kernel. Unix > > I think you are confusing it with the goals of microkernels (e.g. Mach or > Hurd). No and the quote below is from Doug McIlroy - who amongst other thing invented pipes. > > > > "We used to sit around in the Unix Room

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Am 23.01.2016 um 18:28 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes : >>> There is lots of stuff we probe and bind via user space - most things >>> these days in fact. That's much of why we have notifiers and udev. It's >>> frequently a win in flexibility, security and configurability to do stuff >>> via user

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

> > There is lots of stuff we probe and bind via user space - most things > > these days in fact. That's much of why we have notifiers and udev. It's > > frequently a win in flexibility, security and configurability to do stuff > > via user daemons. We do it for example with all the volume

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Am 22.01.2016 um 21:12 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes : >> I would have expected that the main (and IMO sufficient) reason why >> the kernel should do it is because the particular bus used to connect >> a BT chip to the CPU is a hw detail that a kernel that does its job >> should keep to itself.

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Am 22.01.2016 um 21:12 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes : >> I would have expected that the main (and IMO sufficient) reason why >> the kernel should do it is because the particular bus used to connect >> a BT chip to the CPU is a hw detail that a kernel that does its job

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

> > There is lots of stuff we probe and bind via user space - most things > > these days in fact. That's much of why we have notifiers and udev. It's > > frequently a win in flexibility, security and configurability to do stuff > > via user daemons. We do it for example with all the volume

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Am 23.01.2016 um 18:28 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes : >>> There is lots of stuff we probe and bind via user space - most things >>> these days in fact. That's much of why we have notifiers and udev. It's >>> frequently a win in flexibility, security and configurability

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:12:29 + One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > I would have expected that the main (and IMO sufficient) reason why > > the kernel should do it is because the particular bus used to connect > > a BT chip to the CPU is a hw detail that a kernel that does its job > > should keep

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

> I would have expected that the main (and IMO sufficient) reason why > the kernel should do it is because the particular bus used to connect > a BT chip to the CPU is a hw detail that a kernel that does its job > should keep to itself. Same as userspace not needing to care if a BT > chip is

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 20 January 2016 at 19:03, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: >> >> Am 20.01.2016 um 18:46 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes >> : >> The problem is that *I* have no control over user space. But I also don't want to say to my users

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

On 20 January 2016 at 19:03, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > > Am 20.01.2016 um 18:46 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes > : > >>> The problem is that *I* have no control over user space. But I also don't >>> want >>> to say to my users "that is not my problem - get it solved yourself". This >>> does

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

> I would have expected that the main (and IMO sufficient) reason why > the kernel should do it is because the particular bus used to connect > a BT chip to the CPU is a hw detail that a kernel that does its job > should keep to itself. Same as userspace not needing to care if a BT > chip is

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:12:29 + One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > I would have expected that the main (and IMO sufficient) reason why > > the kernel should do it is because the particular bus used to connect > > a BT chip to the CPU is a hw detail that a kernel that

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

On 20 January 2016 at 19:03, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > > Am 20.01.2016 um 18:46 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes > : > >>> The problem is that *I* have no control over user space. But I also don't >>> want >>> to say to my users "that is not my

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 20 January 2016 at 19:03, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: >> >> Am 20.01.2016 um 18:46 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes >> : >> The problem is that *I* have no control

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi, Dmitry. > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Vostrikov Andrey > wrote: >> >> Yes, such implementation will help. There is a need for interface like UART >> BUS that will probe devices without user space. >> Serial I/O for input subsystem defines new type of bus and uses dedicated >> line

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Vostrikov Andrey wrote: > > Yes, such implementation will help. There is a need for interface like UART > BUS that will probe devices without user space. > Serial I/O for input subsystem defines new type of bus and uses dedicated > line discipline, but it still

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Am 20.01.2016 um 18:46 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes : >> The problem is that *I* have no control over user space. But I also don't >> want >> to say to my users "that is not my problem - get it solved yourself". This >> does >> not help them. > > Stuffing things into the kernel because the

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

> The problem is that *I* have no control over user space. But I also don't want > to say to my users "that is not my problem - get it solved yourself". This > does > not help them. Stuffing things into the kernel because the user space of a given platform can't get itself organised isn't

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Next mail. Am 19.01.2016 um 15:25 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes : >>> Whoever puts the distribution together. The kernel runs init. Beyond that >>> we don't care. Not our problem. You can boot into emacs if you want. >> >> Well, it is my big problem which goes contrary to our goal to have the

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi Alan, here the missing answers. Am 18.01.2016 um 23:32 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller : > Just a first short answer (can't work 7/24 :). > > Am 18.01.2016 um 23:03 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes > : > Your user space can do it (as most Android does). >>> >>> How can it do it in

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Next mail. Am 19.01.2016 um 15:25 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes : >>> Whoever puts the distribution together. The kernel runs init. Beyond that >>> we don't care. Not our problem. You can boot into emacs if you want. >> >> Well, it is my big problem which goes contrary

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

> The problem is that *I* have no control over user space. But I also don't want > to say to my users "that is not my problem - get it solved yourself". This > does > not help them. Stuffing things into the kernel because the user space of a given platform can't get itself organised isn't

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Am 20.01.2016 um 18:46 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes : >> The problem is that *I* have no control over user space. But I also don't >> want >> to say to my users "that is not my problem - get it solved yourself". This >> does >> not help them. > > Stuffing things

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi Alan, here the missing answers. Am 18.01.2016 um 23:32 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller : > Just a first short answer (can't work 7/24 :). > > Am 18.01.2016 um 23:03 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes > : > Your user space can do it (as most

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Vostrikov Andrey wrote: > > Yes, such implementation will help. There is a need for interface like UART > BUS that will probe devices without user space. > Serial I/O for input subsystem defines new type of bus and uses

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi, Dmitry. > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Vostrikov Andrey > wrote: >> >> Yes, such implementation will help. There is a need for interface like UART >> BUS that will probe devices without user space. >> Serial I/O for input subsystem defines new type

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi all, I will reverse a part of this e-mail to make replying easier. On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> Please have a look into our RFC implementation and study it carefully >> to learn why it is the better (IMHO more flexible, easier to maintain, more >> modular)

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

> > asking "device tree maintainer opinion", and then just simply ignoring > > it when he does not like it, and then making promises he did not keep. > > Which promises did I not keep? Please be specific, instead of You promised to shut up. > Please have a look into our RFC implementation and

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi Pavel, Am 28.08.2015 um 09:02 schrieb Pavel Machek : > Hi! > >> we (the developers of the hardware) have proposed an alternative >> approach to Neil’s implementation - for the same device and solving >> the same problem (notifying tty open/close and uart activity to the >> slave device

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi! > we (the developers of the hardware) have proposed an alternative > approach to Neil’s implementation - for the same device and solving > the same problem (notifying tty open/close and uart activity to the > slave device driver), but differently. > > See: >

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi! we (the developers of the hardware) have proposed an alternative approach to Neil’s implementation - for the same device and solving the same problem (notifying tty open/close and uart activity to the slave device driver), but differently. See: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/28/91

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi Pavel, Am 28.08.2015 um 09:02 schrieb Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz: Hi! we (the developers of the hardware) have proposed an alternative approach to Neil’s implementation - for the same device and solving the same problem (notifying tty open/close and uart activity to the slave device

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

asking device tree maintainer opinion, and then just simply ignoring it when he does not like it, and then making promises he did not keep. Which promises did I not keep? Please be specific, instead of You promised to shut up. Please have a look into our RFC implementation and study it

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi all, I will reverse a part of this e-mail to make replying easier. On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote: Please have a look into our RFC implementation and study it carefully to learn why it is the better (IMHO more flexible, easier to maintain, more modular)

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi Linus, Am 12.08.2015 um 01:20 schrieb NeilBrown : > On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:01:47 +0200 Linus Walleij > wrote: > >> Hi Neil, >> >> first, this is a *VERY* interesting and much needed patch series, >> I intend to look closer at it, and if possible test it with some >> (heh) board file device.

Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi Linus, Am 12.08.2015 um 01:20 schrieb NeilBrown n...@brown.name: On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:01:47 +0200 Linus Walleij linus.wall...@linaro.org wrote: Hi Neil, first, this is a *VERY* interesting and much needed patch series, I intend to look closer at it, and if possible test it with some