On Monday 14 April 2008, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
> Without this it is possible to unload the SPI-driver while an
> spidev user open()ed the spidev device.
Does that misbehave in any way? That sort of unloading of
adapter code is possible with USB and I2C and hasn't been
perceived as much of a problem. I'm not sure I see a strong
reason for SPI to act very different.
Also, the issue wouldn't be unique to "spidev"; any SPI device
will be removed along with its adapter. Like USB and I2C...
> + master->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> ret = spi_register_master(master);
If this is really needed, what I most dislike is the way it
causes changes in all the adapter drivers. So rather than
changing the API like that, how about switching its current
implementation a bit ... more like
static inline int spi_register_master(struct spi_master *master)
{
return __spi_register_master(master, THIS_MODULE);
}
That's pretty much what i2c_add_driver() does.
- Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
spi-devel-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
