Messages in this thread |  | | From | Keith Owens <> | Subject | Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up | Date | Sat, 19 May 2001 01:09:41 +1000 |
| |
cc trimmed back to mailing lists only.
On Fri, 18 May 2001 10:53:53 -0400, "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote: > (a) Back off the capability approach. That is, accept that > people doing configuration are going to explicitly and > exhaustively specify low-level hardware.
No, you loose one of the nicer features of CML2.
> (b) Add complexity to the ruleset. Split SCSI into SCSI_MIDLEVEL and > SCSI_DRIVERS capabilities, make sure SCSI_DRIVERS is implied > whenever a SCSI card is configured, etc.
As a specific case this needs doing anyway, to handle SCSI emulation over IDE, irrespective of the board type. It needs mid layer but no SCSI driver and can be done on a PC right now.
As a general question, I prefer selecting machine type foo to mean just that, you get the devices supported by foo.
> (c) Decide not to support this case and document the fact in the > rulesfile. If you're going put gunge on the VME bus that replaces > the SBC's on-board facilities, you can hand-hack your own configs.
In general this is the best option, if you create a non-standard configuration for machine foo then it is your problem, not everybody else's.
- 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/
|  |