Re: Crazy Idea: Replacing /dev using sysfs over time

From: Shawn Starr
Date: Mon Sep 26 2005 - 19:02:54 EST



Or instead of even needing major/minor we just have:


/sys/class/sound
`- - audio0
|
| - raw
`-- dsp0
|
| - raw

Then instead, let udev know that audio0 and dsp0 belong to one sound card
device or have it report this in sysfs:

/dev/class/sound
`--sound0
|
| -- dev
| -- device -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00
`-- audio0
|- device -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.5
`--dsp0
| -device -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.5
`--mixer0
`--sound1
|
| -dev
| -- device -> ../../../devices/pci0000:00:1a
`--audio0
|- device
--> ../../../devices/pci0000:00:1a/0000:00:1c.6

And so forth.


Then map sound0 devices in /dev/dsp0 /dev/mixer0 /dev/audio0 with udev

*NOTE: I am not avocating devfs, but more of keeping sysfs as the primary
structure for devices.

On September 26, 2005 19:28, Shawn Starr wrote: > I wonder if in the future,
we can just eliminate /dev altogether (or map it
> via sysfs until older apps move away from /dev). It just seems we could
> represent major,minor in a sysfs node:
>
> /sys/class/block/
> `-- sda
>
> |-- sda1
> |
> | - major
> | - minor
> | - raw
> |
> |-- sda2
> |
> | - major
> | - minor
> | - raw
>
> `-- sda3
>
> and so forth, or under a different branch elsewhere.
>
> Does it make sense? Logical? Illogical? Do we really need /dev other than
> for historical/legacy purposes?
>
> Shawn.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/