On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> Why is this in sysfs at all anyway?
I don't know. The author of module should be asked.
> Why not put it in debugfs?
I thought about this. I even have somewhere a draft patch.
> And for every sysfs file, you need to have a Documenation/ABI/ entry.
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 11:58:43PM +0100, Chris Ball wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 03:27:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > So what we end up with is extremely thin. Something about adding
> > something to sysfs.
> >
> > This is not enough! You're proposing an addition to the kernel->user
>
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:08:58 +0300
Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
> >> Here is a patch which brings possibility to get test results via sysfs. It
> >> helps to do tests non-interactively.
> >>
> >> We have the file created under sysfs already and
Andy,
Would you please give any command to check card type?
---henry
--- On Tue, 9/7/10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> From: Andy Shevchenko
> Subject: [PATCHv6 3/3] mmc_test: collect data and show it via sysfs by demand
> To: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
>
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hoping Andy doesn't mind me jumping in, here's an attempt at a better
> changelog:
Thanks. I will take into account this.
> Prior to this patch, the "test" file under each card's sysfs node was
> write-only, and results were obtained by looking
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> Here is a patch which brings possibility to get test results via sysfs. It
>> helps to do tests non-interactively.
>>
>> We have the file created under sysfs already and we could use it to out test
>> results.
>
> So what we end up with is ex
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 03:27:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> So what we end up with is extremely thin. Something about adding
> something to sysfs.
>
> This is not enough! You're proposing an addition to the kernel->user
> ABI. Please fully describe this interface so that we can understand
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:35:26 +0300
Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> TODO:
> - implement show() method based on seq_file API
>
> Changes since v5:
> - we can't use BUG_ON at exit() method because it quite normal case when the
>module is going to be removed with card plugged in, that's why we just f
TODO:
- implement show() method based on seq_file API
Changes since v5:
- we can't use BUG_ON at exit() method because it quite normal case when the
module is going to be removed with card plugged in, that's why we just free
memory there
- rebase against recent linux-next tree
Changes si
