Subject: Re: CFR: The Auto-Generation Block/Character Device Switch
To: None <tech-kern@NetBSD.org>
From: Matt Thomas <email@example.com>
Date: 05/15/2002 09:31:15
At 10:29 AM 5/14/2002, MAEKAWA Masahide wrote:
>John Franklin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >First, how similar is the devsw_attach(9) API to the devfs registration
> >API? If they were identical, this would be a win for drivers as they'd
> >be source (and binary?) compatible which would ease adoption of devfs.
> >Easing the transition to devfs would make this An Even Better Thing.
>No relationship between them, I think. If you don't think so,
>please explain/suggest your 'devfs' in SEPARATE thread.
> >Second, even though it would change the device numbers for some devices
> >on some ports, I echo Darren Reed's call to make it a single MI list,
> >rather than a list per port under /sys/arch/<ARCH>/conf, perhaps
> >allocating a section of majors for MD devices.
>It's not my business to decide to share or not.
>It's portmasters' work, right? If portmasters
>decide to share, they do it.
Let's first get this committed and being used. It is an improvement
over the current state. Once that's done, further improvments can
be made. We don't have to design it all at once. Let's do some
incremental development instead of trying to solve all the problems
as once. That never works.
Matt Thomas Internet: email@example.com
3am Software Foundry WWW URL: http://www.3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA Disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message