Messages in this thread |  | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | | Subject | Re: IDE/ATAPI in 2.5 | | Date | 15 Jul 2002 22:46:17 -0700 |
| |
Followup to: <20020714003425.GC29007@codepoet.org> By author: Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > Of course making user space do this is pretty lame. But we > have a much better way. Each cdrom device registers with the > uniform cdrom driver, which can easily assign each registered > cdrom device a major and minor. That scanning for cdroms would > be as simple as > for i in /dev/cdrom* ; do > open ($i, O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK)) < 0) { > /* Found a cdrom drive */ > } >
Yes, something like that would be nice.
However, the case still remains that I think Linus' proposed overall packet infrastructure is the right thing to do. That way a uniform API would be available for poking at any device that supports MMC (is that the correct term these days?) commands, regardless of the type of device and the lower-level transports.
People have -- correctly -- corrected me on the "ATAPI = SCSI over IDE" issue. When I think of SCSI, I tend to think of what a network engineer would call "the upper data link layer", i.e. the command packet frame format. I did not mean to imply that the physical interface (PHY), or the lower data link layer (MAC) where the same. I also realize that there are differences, but *from what I've seen* they seem to be relatively minor.
I meant to start a discussion, not "call a vote", especially not w.r.t. the lower-level implementation details.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |