> > So one question I have: Fork, or Evolve?
>
> I'd prefer Evolve.
>
> It's development for a reason and if it's broken for a bit, it's all the
> more encouragement to fix it.
That's pretty much my preference for the existing HCDs too.
Sounds like that can start pretty much as soon as there's a
2.5 tree available -- seems like enough agreement, unless
someone with a violent disagreement has been lurking!
> > A less fundamental one is how to package that sharable/common
> > chunk of code. I've already structured EHCI so there's a line
> > between that sharable stuff (richer "struct usb_bus" level support)
> > and the main driver. That particular line will have to evolve from
> > what was in my March 5 snapshot ... but, how?
> >
> > I think I'd probably prefer an evolutionary approach, adding a
> > new "drivers/usb/hcd.c" module and growing usb_bus and
> > usb_operations structures directly. It could easily start with
> > root hub or PCI infrastructure code. Such incremental growth
> > would make it easier for folk to understand the changes as they
> > happen, and likely make it easier for more folk to help out.
> > Should make it easier to merge into 2.4 based systems too.
> >
> > That's not how the EHCI code is currently packaged, though
> > root hub and PCI code are certainly parts I hope would be
> > shared ... as well as (later) bandwidth scheduling code.
>
> I don't think sharing the PCI code is necessary. It's small enough as it
> is and is just over engineering IMHO.
Actually I think there's enough there to share. Particularly
when all the various shutdown/resume/restart/error scenarios
(with power management) start to get handled more correctly.
In the EHCI incarnation of this notion, sharable PCI code is
basically the same size as the sharable root hub code.
(One can also argue that many parts of Linux are erring too
much on the under-engineered side ... :)
> The root hub code on the other hand is in desperate need of being shared
> :)
It should be one of the first to get shared, for sure!
> I like the idea of a drivers/usb/hcd.c, however I don't think it's
> necessary for it to be a seperate module. It's useless without the core
> and the core is useless without it. It should just be linked into the
> core.
Absolutely. That's how EHCI does it when the core is statically
linked; with modular usbcore build problems kept cropping up,
that's the only reason it's a module in that patch.
- Dave
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
