Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: PNP patch into kernel when? | Date | Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:58:49 -0500 (EST) | From | "Andrew E. Mileski" <> |
| |
> Before we (noticeable Linus) add yet another interface for device > allocation/registration to the kernel, I think we should try to look > at the needs for all the various architectures and try to specify a > common interface that is similar for all (bus)architectures. How does > the new PnP interface compare to the existing Zorro, SBUS and PCI > config interfaces?
I have no idea, as I've never used them. The resource management API is very low level; it deals with IRQ, DMA, I/O, address, etc., allocation. Sitting on top of this is the _optional_ Plug-and-Play API, which is intended to handle any kind of device that requires resources (all devices require some sort of hardware resource).
Hooks are already in place for: PnP-ISA, PnP-BIOS, PCI, PCMCIA, EISA, legacy (non-identifiable and/or non-configurable). Adding hooks for new device types is easily done. Also, stuff like devices on docking stations are supported.
At the moment, the interface favours PnP-ISA/PnP-BIOS, but this is soon to change.
> I see no reason to have N fundamentally different interfaces for this > if we can have one common interface. This will also be usefull if/when > we try to integrate/merge various drivers (for instance I dont see > much of a reason for having 7+ different Lance Ethernet drivers in the > kernel).
This is exactly what the PnP API will hopefully achieve. A driver will ask for what devices are present, determine which ones it can handle, and request that the devices be configured and activated.
-- Andrew E. Mileski mailto:aem@ott.hookup.net Linux Plug-and-Play Kernel Project http://www.redhat.com/linux-info/pnp/ XFree86 Matrox Team http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~ajv/xf86-matrox.html
|  |