Why using the libusb requires detaching the kernel driver? Why isn't it possible to perform some USB IOs along with the kernel driver?
Mainly to avoid confusion about the state of the USB-device. Each interface can only have one "user" at any given time.
Many USB-devices can enter different execution domains, cache-states, DMA transfers etc. These kinds of devices will then have state-machine-trackers in the driver, and it would easily fall out of sync or other types of conflicts. Not all devices are simple HID interfaces (which can be manipulated via other API's btw)
In order to communicate, each USB device have endpoints. These endpoint are like pipes, in these pipes all the data are travalling.
One endpoint have only one direction and can be use just by 1 driver.
So you need to detach the kernel driver in order to make available these endpoints.
If you want you can always detect and desactivate the driver which use the device in order to avoid the use of detach kernel driver.
Related
I have implemented a device driver for the NRF24L01+ transceiver in userspace using rust. The userspace driver makes use of the kernel spi interface driver. Writing the driver as kernel module seems incredibly hard, as the documentation for linux/netdevice.h as found in linux device drivers seems outdated (or I'm just not smart enough to understand the intricate details).
A new project from the TU Munich proposes the use of vfio. From my understanding this type of driver implementation uses the iommu to manage isolation to protected memory areas for the devices. "Project Ixy" uses the network device as block device, hence it can be mapped. SPI is different as insofar it is a streaming protocol.
My question is, if it is possible to integrate the user space spi network device driver into the linux network stack, e.g. having all protocols etc handled by the network stack. Is it possible to use a similar approach as Project Ixy, like having a small component in kernel space, which is isolated for security, that builds a "bridge" to userland?
I think it is possible in two ways:
using TAP interface
writing your own "bridging" interface like TAP between user space and kernel space
If ethernet-like interface is enough for you - then use TAP. I mean TAP provides functionality where physical layer is moved to user space. In your case it could work like this: data received by SPI can be pushed to TAP interface to linux network stack. The data received from TAP interface (from Linux network stack) you can push via SPI. Is that what you wanted?
If ethernet-like interace (as TAP is) is not enough for you - you can write your own interface in kernel space basing on TAP sources.
I'm trying to write a Linux character device driver for a device that just happens to communicate over I2C. The device is an Atmel microcontroller with code that provides an I2C address. It already works using the typical i2c-dev method on the Linux-side.
So now I want to replicate i2c-dev as a new driver that works specifically with this particular device, so that I can add some of my own device-specific abstraction code on top. But I'd like to trim out all the unnecessary code from i2c-dev that currently makes it generic. What can be removed in this situation?
What can be removed in this situation?
You're actually asking an XY question.
You would be better off looking at and adapting an existing I2C device driver that is already similar in required functionality, rather than hacking a special case driver for userspace access.
So now I want to replicate i2c-dev as a new driver that works specifically with this particular device, so that I can add some of my own device-specific abstraction code on top
So then you actually need to write a "Client driver" as described below (from Linux Documentation/i2c/summary):
When we talk about I2C, we use the following terms:
Bus -> Algorithm
Adapter
Device -> Driver
Client
An Algorithm driver contains general code that can be used for a whole class
of I2C adapters. Each specific adapter driver either depends on one algorithm
driver, or includes its own implementation.
A Driver driver (yes, this sounds ridiculous, sorry) contains the general
code to access some type of device. Each detected device gets its own
data in the Client structure. Usually, Driver and Client are more closely
integrated than Algorithm and Adapter.
Details are in Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.
To find a driver of similar functionality, scan the list of I2C client drivers. Note that these I2C drivers are located in the Linux source tree by their functionality (e.g. drivers/rtc/ or drivers/hwmon/) and not their interface (i.e. I2C).
I want to scan the signal strength received from 3 AP.
I would be happy if that could happen every 300ms (max.500ms). I flashed OpenWRT on the routers.
I was seeking for a good tool to do that.
First I found iwconfig which worked, but only with networks that I was connected to. So I used iwlist (iw didn't work- maybe I need to update it?). Do you know how accurate is the output of it? Can I trust it?
After that, I came across the IOCTL. It looks really powerful* and professional. But is the output from getting the signal stregnth from a WIFI more reliable than the simple method like iwlist/iw?
*even too much powerful as I failed to compile any program I wrote using it
If you want to determine the signal strength of WLAN access points to which you are not connected, scanning is the right way.
The scanning is performed by the wireless network card with much or little "help" from the driver, depending on the design of the wireless card. There are cards (chipsets, to be more specific) that have their own processor and run their own firmware code independently from the host computer. On the other end, there are "stupid" cards where the driver on the host computer does most of the work.
Between the driver and the rest of the operating system, there is an interface (API) for sending commands to the driver and reading back information in a standardized way. With Linux, there are at least two different APIs. The older one is named Wireless Extensions, and the newer one is named cfg80211. Normally, a driver supports only one of the APIs. Most current drivers use cfg80211, but there may be older drivers that still use Wireless Extensions.
For each of the two APIs, there's a user-space tool (or family of tools) to use it. For Wireless Extensions, there is iwconfig (and iwlist, iwpriv etc.) For cfg80211, there is just iw.
So, the questions about the right tool depends on what API the wireless driver uses. To add confusion ;-), cfg80211 does some emulation which allows you to perform some Wireless Extension calls to drivers that use the newer cfg80211 API.
Regarding your questions about ioctl(): This is a generic method for communication between user-space and kernel-space in Unix operating systems. The old Wireless Extensions API uses ioctl(). The newer cfg80211 API does not use an ioctl()-based interface, but uses nl80211 instead.
To sum it up: whether to use iw/cfg80211/nl80211 or iwconfig/Wireless Extensions/ioctl depends on the driver or your wireless card.
Regarding your desired scanning interval, I would say that 300ms is rather short. This is because for a useful scan, the client needs to leave its current channel for a short time, switch to another channel and listen to signals from other access points on this channel. Since leaving its channel interrupts communication, these off-channel times are usually kept short and are carried out infrequently.
Calling iw <dev> scan or iwlist <dev> scan, respectively, will not necessarily cause a new scan, but may return an old (cached) list of access points. Depending on your wireless card/driver it may be (im)possible to enforce a new scan.
I have a hardware device that consists of 3 separate chips on an I2C bus. I would like to group them together and expose them to userland as one logical device. The user would see the logical device represented by a single directory somewhere in /sys as well as the nodes you'd expect from the I2C chips under /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-?/*.
One of the chips is an MCP23017 which as far as I can tell already has a driver (drivers/gpio/gpio-mcp23s08.c) and I'd like to reuse it. Another of the chips is a PCA9685 and I would like to contribute a driver for this chip that uses the PWM system in include/linux/pwm.h. The third chip is an MCU running custom firmware.
How should I structure the set of drivers? One idea I had is to register a platform driver to present the logical device, and use I2C drivers from within that. Is this a good way to go? Are there better ways?
The logical device is a motor driver board and IR receiver. I have a simple diagram of its structure.
I'm looking to create two interfaces. The first similar to /sys/class/gpio where motors can be 'exported' and then accessed via reading and writing attributes. This would be useful for shell script access and quick debugging of the mechanical parts of the system attached to the motors. The second a character device node in /dev where data can be read or written in binary format, more useful for application control.
it seems not usual design, are you sure you have access to I2C bus of all chips ?
I think you should be able to talk only to MCU, and MCU should manage other devices.
Otherwise, why MCU is there ?
However, I cannot see your diagram, perhaps link is wrong.
I'm trying to write a PCI device driver that runs in user space. Not my idea, what the client wants. Target is an embedded Linux board that will never have more than a single user. I'm an experienced C programmer and know Linux, just not familiar with Linux driver development.
Is this really a device driver or just a library? Do I need to use the typical calls pci_register_driver, etc. or can I just access the device using fopen, and using mmap and ioperm to get to it?
Interrupts will be done using the MSI model. Also need to handle DMA transfers. The device will be streaming lots of data to the user.
There's not much info out there on this subject, LDD3 only devotes a couple of pages to it, and there's nothing else that I could find here on SO.
Thanks in advance!
If there is no driver handling the PCI card it would be possible to access it using ioperm (or iopl - depending on the address) if only port accesses are required.
Using DMA and interrupts is definitely impossible without a kernel-mode driver.
By googleing I found some text about something like a "generic kernel-mode driver" that allows writing user-mode drivers (including DMA and interrupts).
You should ask your customer which kind of kernel-mode drivers for accessing PCI cards is installed on the Linux board.
There is now a proper way to do high performance userspace PCI drivers, called vfio. There is not much documentation, but see the kernel docs http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/vfio.txt and the header file /usr/include/linux.vfio.h. It is available since Linux 3.6.