Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030336AbWBHBEH (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:04:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030338AbWBHBEH (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:04:07 -0500 Received: from [81.2.110.250] ([81.2.110.250]:63385 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030336AbWBHBEG (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:04:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux drivers management From: Alan Cox To: David Chow Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <43E8F8EB.8010800@shaolinmicro.com> References: <20060207044204.8908.qmail@science.horizon.com> <43E8F8EB.8010800@shaolinmicro.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 01:06:03 +0000 Message-Id: <1139360763.22595.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2925 Lines: 66 On Mer, 2006-02-08 at 03:45 +0800, David Chow wrote: > Community Developers and Maintainers: > - Look at the matter on community development process, programming > - Chase for performance, optimization in source level, even though it is > difficult to maintain, who cares? I've done real studies on this. The majority of the kernel interfaces favour simplicity and independance. > - Willing to maintain and develop drivers for free, even though they > don't work for the hardware vendor. Most of our drivers are maintained by people with economic incentives to maintain them. Economic incentives are not always cash and employment. > - We will follow the convention who make changes to the API will have to > patch all the mess in the kernel source, even though there are 3,714,234 > hardware peripheral drivers in the kernel in year 2012, I am happy to do > that :) . Because I want to make change and following the convention. > (how much time to make change or test?) I'd beg to differ. The amount of hardware interfaces in a system that are non standard has been dropping like a stone. Software is *expensive* and it is getting cheaper and cheaper for commodity products to adopt a commodity API, especially in the open source world where pure software pricing scams (eg extra cost for flipping the 'raid enable' bit on a controller) don't work. The recent directions are pretty clear IDE -> Various interfaces -> AHCI A billion periphals -> USB (EHCI/OHCI/UHCI) + Class drivers SATA -> AHCI Sound -> Intel i810 clones/AC97 USB imaging random drivers -> USB video classes Scanners -> USB video/image classes A billion camera interfaces -> USB storage A load of MP3 player interfaces -> USB storage Its getting harder and harder to justify non-standard APIs except in a few areas like infinibong and 3D graphics where they can make a product genuinely better. Even RAID cards are drifting inexorably to either extinction or emulating standard interfaces, and no doubt will eventually end up AHCI. > the community. But strictly speaking, it shouldn't. Please refer to the > process of making a driver from a manufacturers point of view and > consider user using old OS'es which don't want to upgrade. But those people have a stable API - usually RHEL3, RHEL4, SuSE Enterprise. > Sure its not going to change, maybe but not in a year or two, but > freedom of speech exists, right? Time will tell. People said the same when Linux got so big it wouldn't fit on one floppy disk. I can't prove you are wrong but my suspicion is that economic incentives and pressures will mould the development process over time according to the problems it faces. Alan - 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/