Tim Waugh wrote:
> It would allow support for new multi-IO cards to generally be the
> addition of about two lines to two files (which is currently how it's
> done), rather than having separate mutant hybrid monstrosity drivers
> for each card (IMHO)..
;-)
My point of view is that hacking the kernel so that two device drivers
can pretend they are not driving the same hardware is silly. With such
hardware there are always inter-dependencies, and you can either hack
special case code into two or more drivers, or create one central
control point from which knowledge is dispatched. Like I mentioned in a
previous message, the Via parport code is ugly and should go into a Via
superio driver. It is simply not scalable to consider the alternative
-- add superio code to parport_pc.c for each ISA bridge out there. I
think the same principle applies to this discussion as well. It's just
ugly to keep hacking in special cases to handle hardware that is
multifunction like this.
Jeff
-- Jeff Garzik | Sam: "Mind if I drive?" Building 1024 | Max: "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the dash MandrakeSoft | and shrieking like a cheerleader." - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 21:00:19 EST