From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: jimwclark@ntlworld.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Driver Model
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:13:50 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1062530030.29020.16.camel@boobies.awol.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200309021943.15875.jimwclark@ntlworld.com>
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 14:43, James Clark wrote:
> 1. Will the move to a more uniform driver model in 2.6 increase the chances of
> a given binary driver working with a 2.6+ kernel.
I don't see how.
> 2. Will the new model reduce the use/need for kernel modules.
No. The two concepts are really unrelated.
> 3. Will the practice of deliberately breaking some binary only 'tainted'
> modules prevent take up of Linux. Isn't this taking things too far?
Tainted modules are not "broken" -- they just display a "tainted"
message. We do not do things to deliberately break binary-only modules.
The driver model has four main benefits, in my eyes:
- unifies code between the previous desperate driver models
- creates a device topology, which is needed for power
management
- allows for things like sysfs and other logical device
representations
- it is just the Right Way to do it
None of your questions are related to the driver model, really. It is
not a new uniform driver API, if that is what you are thinking. It is
a topology/hierarchal abstraction for devices.
Robert Love
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-02 19:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-02 18:43 Driver Model James Clark
2003-09-02 19:13 ` Robert Love [this message]
2003-09-02 20:44 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-09-03 14:36 ` Stuart MacDonald
2003-09-03 14:52 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2003-09-03 14:57 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-03 15:13 ` Stuart MacDonald
2003-09-03 15:33 ` Mariusz Zielinski
2003-09-03 15:50 ` Stuart MacDonald
2003-09-03 16:02 ` Mariusz Zielinski
2003-09-03 17:58 ` Stuart MacDonald
2003-09-03 16:58 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-03 18:21 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-09-03 15:50 ` Mariusz Zielinski
2003-09-03 22:41 ` David Schwartz
2003-09-04 11:03 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-03 15:22 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-09-02 21:29 ` Patrick Mochel
2003-09-02 21:44 ` James Clark
2003-09-02 22:05 ` Greg KH
2003-09-02 22:08 ` Robert Love
2003-09-02 22:39 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-09-02 23:52 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-09-03 0:20 ` David Schwartz
2003-09-03 17:38 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-09-03 18:19 ` Alan Cox
2003-09-03 18:15 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-09-04 12:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2003-09-03 13:10 ` Alan Cox
[not found] <rtHg.3n0.9@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <rK5y.1xN.25@gated-at.bofh.it>
2003-09-03 18:42 ` Pascal Schmidt
2003-09-03 19:49 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-09-03 22:41 ` David Schwartz
2003-09-03 23:11 ` Pascal Schmidt
2003-09-03 23:33 ` David Schwartz
2003-09-04 1:38 ` Pascal Schmidt
2003-09-04 3:01 ` David Schwartz
2003-09-04 14:21 ` Pascal Schmidt
2003-09-04 1:37 ` Andre Hedrick
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1062530030.29020.16.camel@boobies.awol.org \
--to=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=jimwclark@ntlworld.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).