Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:28:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:28:02 -0500 Received: from fmr05.intel.com ([134.134.136.6]:43512 "EHLO hermes.jf.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:28:01 -0500 Message-ID: <002001c29572$2ce2b2e0$94d40a0a@amr.corp.intel.com> From: "Rusty Lynch" To: Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" References: <3de395e1.2c79.0@wincom.net> Subject: Re: A Kernel Configuration Tale of Woe Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:35:12 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2776 Lines: 79 > I started doing a little doodling, and I came up with a very rough sort of relationship > map. I don't present this as the ideal data model - it's a start point at best. > > > A "box" is composed of "devices" and "subcomponents" > A "subcomponent" is composed of "chipsets" > A "chipset" provides a set of "capabilities" > A "device" requires a set of "capabilities" > A "chipset->capability::capablility<-device" pair defines an "interface" > An "interface" has associated with it: > a) the kernel version where it first became availible > b) the kernel config switches that activate it > > So what is needed is some way to start at the "box" level, and given the set > of subcomponents and devices associated with it, spit out a list of a) and b) > > > Here's the mini-eureka I've had - that need not actually be a part of the kernel > config system, although the kernel config system might potentially make use > of it. > > What would suffice would be some sort of online database, published in a highly > visible location, and crosslinked from hell and back to make it likely to be > discovered in a Google-driven troubleshooting session. Provide motherboard make > and model (a subcomponent) any expansion cards (also subcomponents) and the > make and model numbers of drives et al (devices) and then query the database > and present the report. > > I'm envisioning something very much like the CDDB service. This is a little > more complex, but the concept is similar. And like the CDDB service, it could > be queried over the network by some future "make" option if somebody decided > to implement that. > > Also like the CDDB service, it makes use of network effects. No one person has > to populate the _entire_ database. The association of "subcomponents" to "chipsets" > (or "devices" to "capabilities") might be done by the manufacturer, or it might > be done by the developer who actually debugged the original driver instance, > or it might even be done by someone like myself (a sufficiently clued-in sysadmin > who did it the hard way and wants to help those who will follow after him) > > All that matters is that _somebody_ contribute one little portion of the mapping, > and then, given enough somebodies, the entire map assembles itself. > So how would you deal with somebody contributing bogus mappings? What if somebody was just wrong, or uploading a mapping in error? > And if Microsoft hasn't dared attempt such a thing... well, then that would > make it an "innovation", wouldn't it? ;) > > DG - 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/