lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: CML2 design philosophy heads-up
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:53    [W:0.332 / U:17.880 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site