> Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> : On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Jan Kasprzak wrote:
> : > Alan Cox wrote:
> : > : > I agree with Krzysztof that sync board driver should be as simple
> : > : > as possible, and syncppp.c (or whatever it will be named) should do
> : > : > everything else (registering net device, switching link protocols, etc).
> : > :
> : > : Why ?
> : > :
> : > : What if I want to do things differently. Right now I can re-educate syncppp.
> : > : I can for example switch to hardware ppp and use software for X.25
> : > :
> : > Yes, I know that mid-layer approach is not flexible enough,
> : > but I think we still want to move more work (e.g. registering the device name
> : > and maybe the character device emulation) to syncppp.c.
> :
> : Why is the character device emulation needed at all ?
>
> I occasionaly use sync line for transfering raw data instead
> of some network protocol. I think most sync board drivers have
> some sort of character device emulation. IMHO it would be wise
> to move it to syncppp.c.
What about the wanrouter subsystem? It's considered broken? I wrote a
driver for a serial sync board with X.25 firmware, should I stick with
wanrouter or rewrite my driver as a normal network driver? I'm beginning
to study the BSD socket approach used in sangoma boards to give raw access
to X.25 (which is implemented in firmware in the cyclom2x boards, I don't
have access to hdlc in this board), it's wise to use the sangoma drivers
approach or think about something else?
- Arnaldo
-
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/