[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: CML2 design philosophy heads-up
cc trimmed back to mailing lists only.

On Fri, 18 May 2001 10:53:53 -0400,
"Eric S. Raymond" <> 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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:53    [W:0.339 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site