> From: Shaun Wilson <plexus@ionet.net>
>
> but will it come with Linux? no. Shoudl linux have an adequate equal? I
> think yes.
>
> Why should Linux developers develop a UDI driver? A native driver will
> be easier to write, and probably faster and more efficient.
>
> As near as I can tell, UDI drivers will always be a poor second cousin
> to native drivers... For some hardware it may not make a difference
> (for example, a scanner). But for other hardware (such as a gigabit
> ethernet board), my guess is that UDI will be a disaster as far as
> performance is concerned.
>
And you base this off? Hmm. It would seem that with a well defined and
designed interface and common means of development would yield a faster
development process for 'UDI' drivers, as well as a simpler interface by
which to design a driver.
I take it 'native' means a driver that directly interacts with the kernel
code? yes?
And as far as performance hits? I understand where you are coming from on
this, and i fell that when (and i suppose IF) UDI is implemeneted in the
Linux kernel then special attention should be paid to exactly HOW the
interface is defined and implemented for the kernel. I don't
see that just because it is a standardized driver interface that a given
driver would be any slower. Again, with a well laid interface (both at
high and low levels of code AND design) it wouldn't matter. Granted, I
see your point that given a poor design, a generic interface by which all
devices are used, all devices may suffer a performance loss. But who's to
say that UDI will require a 'vanilla' interface where you 'plug in' a
driver and teh kernel decides to do with it as it wishes? Would it not be
possible to write a UDI device driver interface and then use that
interface to tie drivers more closely into say, networking code, or
video code?
e.g. becasue teh driver is UDI it give us the ability to utilize that
driver using a UDI spec. A UDI spec should not be so dimwitted that
there's an extra layer of code between teh driver and it's 'controller'.
I would hate to think that Linux developers would narrowmindedly design a
rigid interface for UDI utilization that would put a driver farther away
from it's actual use than needed. A good example of this is Microsofts
DirectX. Something that provides not only a lousy interface for what it's
intended, but also introduces MANY levels of processing before the API
actually 'does its work'.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/