on 18/05/2008 21:32 Rui Paulo said the following:
Yes, but I still don't like having everything mixed up in one driver. At
the very least, I would like us to have two drivers. One for the
microcode update and the other driver for the rest.
I would like to see a microcode update utility (driver + something to
parse Intel's file aka devcpu-data) in the base system, but not "the
rest", though.
Well, I am not sure what is a basis for such a requirement.
As I pointed out before we already have /dev/pci and /dev/io and those
are not going to go away, because there are quite reasonable
applications that require those devices (and wide-spread too). And I
think that sufficiently structured (via ioctl interface) access to CPU
is also needed for some quite useful (and reasonable) userland applications.
I can understand efforts to prevent foot-shooting, but I can not
understand an approach of limiting abilities of a (sufficiently)
privileged user. After all, he/she can rebuild a kernel and put all they
need into it.
--
Andriy Gapon
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
