lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system?
From
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Stefan Richter
<stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> Jon Smirl wrote:
>> If these drivers are for specific USB devices it is straight forward
>> to turn them into kernel based drivers. If we are going for plug and
>> play this needs to happen. All USB device drivers can be implemented
>> in user space, but that doesn't mean you want to do that. Putting
>> device drivers in the kernel subjects them to code inspection, they
>> get shipped everywhere, they autoload when the device is inserted,
>> they participate in suspend/resume, etc.
>
> Huh?  Userspace implementations /can/ be code-reviewed (but they can't
> crash your machine), they /can/ be and are shipped everywhere, they /do/
> auto-load when the device is inserted.  And if there should be an issue
> with power management (is there any?), then improve the ABI and libusb
> can surely be improved.  I don't see why a device with a userspace
> driver cannot be included in power management.

If you want a micro-kernel there are plenty to pick from. Linux has
chosen not to be a micro-kernel. The Linux model is device drivers in
the kernel.

--
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-28 20:35    [W:2.214 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site