Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:08:33 -0500 (EST) | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: What do you think about UDI? |
| |
Ivan Passos writes: > On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, Paul Koning wrote: >> [somebody wrote]
>>> Its name is Project UDI. The main objective of this effort is >>> to provide an interface to the device drivers that is common >>> to all UDI compliant OS's. That means that to port a driver >>> from one OS to the other, you don't need to _change_ the >>> source code, but just compile it in the new OS's compiler. I >>> believe that this is a great initiative and I think that Linux >>> could be inside that group.
For those that don't know about it yet: http://www.sco.com/products/layered/develop/devspecs/udi/index.html
>> Most drivers are largely OS specific code (the actual hardware >> fondling is in the minority). Abstracting that in a meaningful way to >> a meaningful range of operating systems is unlikely to succeed, unless >> you don't mind having no performance at all.
Low-performance vs. no-performance, hmmm?
> I also wrote/maintained drivers for several OS's (including SCO > Openserver, Unixware, BSDI, FreeBSD and, of course, Linux) and there is > one thing that is what makes the port withou source code changes > impossible: the incompatibility between the OS's driver-kernel interfaces.
The kernel can provide whatever API is needed. Wrappers can be used.
> Even though the idea of creating a common interface to all OS's seems > feasible, you have mentioned a very important issue to consider: > performance. I don't even dare to talk about that anymore. Great point.
Not every driver is for FDDI on a 486. At the very least, the UDI drivers could support a development system long enough to write a normal Linux driver.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |