* David Brownell | 2008-04-14 16:23:36 [-0700]:
>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
Yes. Unload, read() -> Ooops.
>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.
True. usb returns with -ENODEV after read/whatever. We could add
something like this to spi/spidev. This might also fit better into
hot-plugging.
>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.
This looks definitely better.
>- Dave
Sebatian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
