On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:07:50AM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > Hi Greg, > > this discussion about device tree representation in /proc versus /sys > came up during OLPC development discussions. A few words on the > background: Linux has had OpenFirmware support for PowerPC for a long > time. The OLPC machine is an AMD Geode (x86 arch) which uses LinuxBIOS > with OpenFirmware. > Since you're the sysfs and device tree expert and we want our kernel > modifications to end up upstream, could you give some advice on the > points below?
As it seems that Mitch has posted patches that create a separate filesystem, I think this email is a bit late in my responding :) > Mitch Bradley wrote: > > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> Mitch Bradley wrote: > >> > >>> Mitch: > >>> Code for device tree via /proc nearly ready > >> > >> Are you sure that you want to introduce new files in /proc which are > >> not process-related? You will never get such a change merged upstream. > >> > > I'm not sure of anything when it comes to Linux these days. It seems > > like everything is a political football. > > > >> What speaks against /sys for that purpose? > >> > > The intention was to do /sys at some point, but we had a /proc example > > in the PowerPC arch to use as a model. Use /sys please if at all possible. But I really don't know what your use of such a tree would be, to know if sysfs is the proper place for it or not. I suggest working with the SPARC and ppc developers so we don't end up with 3 different representations of OpenFirmware in the kernel at the same time. good luck, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
