On Wednesday 31 October 2007 02:40, Tabish Mustufa wrote: > Hello again folks: > > So it seems that there is some traction for bringing the comedi > drivers into the mainline kernel. I thought I'd start to put together > a list of items we may want to tackle. Let us know if you think these > are good or bad ideas... Your list seems to be a combination of 2 independent goals. One, being general improvement to comedi, and the other changes specifically for kernel inclusion. I suspect this is due to your belief that drivers need to be very mature and stable interface-wise before being worthy of inclusion in the main kernel tree. Essentially, that the drivers should be finished with their development and be in pure maintainence mode. However, my impression was that the kernel developers wanted driver development to be done in-tree. If I'm wrong (and I may be, I don't follow the LKML at all) then there is really no point in talking about kernel inclusion for comedi at this point. Kernel inclusion would just be the last, relatively trivial step at the end of a long road. However, if you look at udev development, for example, it has been making user-space breaking changes ever since it was introduced. Comedi's interface is, by comparison, set in stone. And udev is something that is used by nearly everyone, and furthermore it was replacing a mature (though apparently flawed) solution that was already in place (devfs). My point is, the rationale for forcing udev to keep a fixed interface was so much stronger than any rationale I can imagine for forcing comedi to keep a fixed interface, there is no comparison. And yet udev was allowed to evolve and improve, despite being in-tree. -- Frank -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20071031/ffff9217/attachment.pgp
