Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:41:35 -0300 (EST) | From | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <> | Subject | Re: Synchronous board drivers |
| |
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Jan Kasprzak wrote:
> Gergely Madarasz wrote: > : On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Jan Kasprzak wrote: > : > Alan Cox wrote: > : > : > I agree with Krzysztof that sync board driver should be as simple > : > : > as possible, and syncppp.c (or whatever it will be named) should do > : > : > everything else (registering net device, switching link protocols, etc). > : > : > : > : Why ? > : > : > : > : What if I want to do things differently. Right now I can re-educate syncppp. > : > : I can for example switch to hardware ppp and use software for X.25 > : > : > : > Yes, I know that mid-layer approach is not flexible enough, > : > but I think we still want to move more work (e.g. registering the device name > : > and maybe the character device emulation) to syncppp.c. > : > : Why is the character device emulation needed at all ? > > I occasionaly use sync line for transfering raw data instead > of some network protocol. I think most sync board drivers have > some sort of character device emulation. IMHO it would be wise > to move it to syncppp.c.
What about the wanrouter subsystem? It's considered broken? I wrote a driver for a serial sync board with X.25 firmware, should I stick with wanrouter or rewrite my driver as a normal network driver? I'm beginning to study the BSD socket approach used in sangoma boards to give raw access to X.25 (which is implemented in firmware in the cyclom2x boards, I don't have access to hdlc in this board), it's wise to use the sangoma drivers approach or think about something else?
- Arnaldo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |