From owner-freebsd-mobile Mon Mar 29 9:19:46 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from netrinsics.com (unknown [210.74.175.159]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C21615906 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 09:19:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robinson@netrinsics.com) Received: (from robinson@localhost) by netrinsics.com (8.9.2/8.8.7) id BAA00898 for freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 01:20:02 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from robinson) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 01:20:02 +0800 (CST) From: Michael Robinson Message-Id: <199903291720.BAA00898@netrinsics.com> To: freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new-bus Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org paul@originative.co.uk writes: >fails to take into account >the dynamic nature of new-bus and it's ability to support third-party >supplied drivers. These drivers would need to be self-contained since they >are not developed by the project but by some third party and would need to >be able to install itself without changes to the installed system. Unless new-bus implements a device-driver API used by operating systems other than FreeBSD, I don't see the rationale, here. Otherwise, any new-bus device driver will necessarily be written with specific reference to the "developed by the project" part of the system. Whether the programmer doing this is a volunteer or some unspecified "third party", they should be able to employ as much of the existing code as modularity and architectural hygiene will permit. This will get more device drivers written faster for FreeBSD, and will ensure fewer bugs in the shared code. -Michael Robinson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message