Subject: Re: CVS commit: src
To: Quentin Garnier <email@example.com>
From: Iain Hibbert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/20/2006 20:13:38
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> You know, you just made a very good point why we'd want to get rid of
> hard-coded limits.
I see what you say, but its not exactly the 640k limit - this is a
configuration option that is easily changed by advanced users.. The
GENERIC config cannot be everything to everybody
> Not sure I follow your point. Someone or something has to keep the
> information anyway. Reading the code, it's completely beyond me why
> you'd need more than one btdev device anyway. All children should
> attach to one you create in btdevattach(), and then you can use the name
> of the attached device as the identifier. You just have to keep a list
> of the children.
Hmm yes, dv_xname.. Maybe I built a house of cards then. The reason for
multiple access points and the minor number index is so that we can find
configured devices in order to remove them later if need be. Using the
name would cover that and the house of cards could blow away.
I will have to think about this some though, because it would throw up
other issues (currently, the stored configuration is also based around the
btdevN and I would have to redesign it)
PS The commit was actually to fix a mistake I made - for some reason I
thought that 'pseudo-device btdev', would result in btdevattach(0) so I
used that to signal the default value. Hence, the GENERIC kernel only
ended up with 1 btdev which was definitely not enough.