Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4
From: Tomeu Vizoso
Date: Fri Jan 22 2016 - 10:52:18 EST
On 20 January 2016 at 19:03, H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am 20.01.2016 um 18:46 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> 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 helpful to the other billion
>> plus Linux devices out there.
> The assumption that there is "the" user space of a given platform is wrong.
I'm a bit surprised at the arguments being exchanged here regarding
why the kernel may or may not deal with the detail that a (say) BT
chip is behind a uart.
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 behind SDIO or USB, why does it have to tell the kernel behind
which UART a BT chip is sitting?