Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: A Layered Kernel: Proposal | From | Christer Weinigel <> | Date | 29 Feb 2004 13:32:04 +0100 |
| |
Grigor Gatchev <grigor@zadnik.org> writes:
> > In the linux kernel I think that one of the most important things I've > > learned from it: middle layers are usually wrong. Instead of hiding a > > device driver behind a middle layer, expose the low level device > > driver, but give it a library of common functions to build upon. That > > way the driver is in control all the time and can use all the neat > > features of the hardware if it wants to, but for all the common tasks > > that have to be done, hand them over to the library. > > By principle, the "least common denominator" type container layers are > bad, because of not being extendable; you are completely right here. A > class-like driver object model seems better to me. And the class-like > model is not the only one that is nicely extendable.
> You seem to be knowledgeable on the topic - what driver object model > would you suggest for a driver layer model?
Thanks for the confidence, bur I really don't know, it's much easier to criticize someone elses design than to come up with a good one myself. :-)
With that said, I think that they way the Linux kernel is moving regarding to IDE/SCSI devices is a good idea. Linux has been around for a while now and the Linux people have tried lots of things that turned out not to be such a good idea after all. Many things are still there in the kernel, but if it's important enough, it gets cleaned up after a while.
/Christer
-- "Just how much can I get away with and still go to heaven?"
Freelance consultant specializing in device driver programming for Linux Christer Weinigel <christer@weinigel.se> http://www.weinigel.se - 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/
| |