Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932218AbWBFQxV (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:53:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932219AbWBFQxU (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:53:20 -0500 Received: from [202.131.75.34] ([202.131.75.34]:19415 "EHLO mail.shaolinmicro.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932218AbWBFQxU (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:53:20 -0500 Message-ID: <43E77EEA.7040908@shaolinmicro.com> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:52:58 +0800 From: David Chow User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jes Sorensen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux drivers management References: <43E71AD7.5070600@shaolinmicro.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3041 Lines: 62 >David> separate Linux drivers and the the main kernel, and manage >David> drivers using a package management system that only manages >David> kernel drivers and modules? If this can be done, the kernel >David> maintenance can be simple, and will end-up with a more stable >David> (less frequent changed) kernel API for drivers, also make every >David> developers of drivers happy. > >David> Would like to see that happens . > >Simple answer: no > >Maybe someone is working on it, but it's highly unlikely to be >anything but a waste of that person's time. > >This is a classic question, by seperating out the drivers you make it >so much harder for all developers to propagate changes into all pieces >of the tree. I write drivers, never need to change kernel if the kernel API is mature enough to provide the need of a module developer needs. There is no reason to make changes to the kernel source, only needed because the original kernel code is crap or the API designed without proper software/system architectural design work effort. Each Linux kernel version go through a lengthy beta release cycle (e.g. 2.3, 2.5, 2.7), this shouldn't happen and idea collection should be enough through this large Linux community. If our time is to focus on kernel's kernel, writing good documentation about a stable kernel API, it will benefit many developers to write drivers to Linux . It is too difficult to learn, this is a main reason why Linux is lack of support from manufacturer drivers, not because they don't like Linux and no market, it is because this has created high entry barrier for them. I've been working on Linux modules for many years, training my engineers, talking to developers, hw manufacturers .. believe it or not, this is the main reason. They all ask for a DDK for Linux that can make drivers easily for their product. I think I am in a different position like you guys, I've been work with Linux from programmer level to Linux promotion . My goal is not just focus on Linux technical or programming, I would like to promote this operating system to not just for programmers, but also non-technical end-users . Writing C code to me is just bits of task of some process. You are too much focus on programming without considering the market situation. There is no right or wrong for this question, but my original question is to listen thoughts and to hear the goal of people in the list. And of course, I would really like to see you people look into the way to facilitate more people gets a path with ease to Linux drivers development. User driver installation without the need to know about kernel sources, gcc, make etc.... "Because I am a dummy, I want to plug-in my device, put in the driver disc and hope it works!" regards, David Chow - 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/