2002-07-31 17:33:54

by James Simmons

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: devfs and tty layer.


Hi!

As you already seen there has been a issue with devfs and the VT code.
I have moved the tty registeration later for VTs so the TTY_DRIVER_NO_DEVFS
flag was no longer needed. Because I removed this now tty_register_driver
calls tty_register_devfs instead of con_init_devfs. Now when con_init_devfs
was calling tty_register_devfs it was passing a different flag to devfs
then the default tty_register_driver does. So I have been thinking about
different approachs to the problem.

1) The first approach is to change the tty_register_devfs function to pass
in the flag.

2) Add a devfs flag field to struct tty_driver.

3) Remove tty_register_devfs from tty_register_driver and have each tty
driver call tty_register_devfs its self.


What solution would you do?


2002-07-31 17:36:35

by Russell King

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: devfs and tty layer.

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:37:15AM -0700, James Simmons wrote:
> As you already seen there has been a issue with devfs and the VT code.
> I have moved the tty registeration later for VTs so the TTY_DRIVER_NO_DEVFS
> flag was no longer needed.

It's needed for serial. Please don't remove it just yet.

--
Russell King ([email protected]) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

2002-07-31 17:40:25

by James Simmons

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: devfs and tty layer.


> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:37:15AM -0700, James Simmons wrote:
> > As you already seen there has been a issue with devfs and the VT code.
> > I have moved the tty registeration later for VTs so the TTY_DRIVER_NO_DEVFS
> > flag was no longer needed.
>
> It's needed for serial. Please don't remove it just yet.

I have no intention to have TTY_DRIVERS_NO_DEVFS removed. I just don't
need it anymore for VTs.