Re: [Xenomai-core] Some thoughts on Analogy kernel side framework

2009-10-20 Thread Alexis Berlemont
On Saturday 17 October 2009 19:55:41 Philippe Gerum wrote: On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 23:52 +0200, Alexis Berlemont wrote: On Monday 12 October 2009 11:30:11 you wrote: On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 00:51 +0200, Alexis Berlemont wrote: On Friday 09 October 2009 10:04:07 you wrote: On Fri,

Re: [Xenomai-core] Some thoughts on Analogy kernel side framework

2009-10-17 Thread Philippe Gerum
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 23:52 +0200, Alexis Berlemont wrote: On Monday 12 October 2009 11:30:11 you wrote: On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 00:51 +0200, Alexis Berlemont wrote: On Friday 09 October 2009 10:04:07 you wrote: On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 00:00 +0200, Alexis Berlemont wrote: If I

Re: [Xenomai-core] Some thoughts on Analogy kernel side framework

2009-10-12 Thread Philippe Gerum
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 00:51 +0200, Alexis Berlemont wrote: On Friday 09 October 2009 10:04:07 you wrote: On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 00:00 +0200, Alexis Berlemont wrote: If I understand well, I have gone too far too soon; the idea should be to keep the current framework as it is for 2.5.

Re: [Xenomai-core] Some thoughts on Analogy kernel side framework

2009-10-12 Thread Alexis Berlemont
On Monday 12 October 2009 11:30:11 you wrote: On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 00:51 +0200, Alexis Berlemont wrote: On Friday 09 October 2009 10:04:07 you wrote: On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 00:00 +0200, Alexis Berlemont wrote: If I understand well, I have gone too far too soon; the idea should be to

Re: [Xenomai-core] Some thoughts on Analogy kernel side framework

2009-10-11 Thread Alexis Berlemont
On Friday 09 October 2009 10:04:07 you wrote: On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 00:00 +0200, Alexis Berlemont wrote: If I understand well, I have gone too far too soon; the idea should be to keep the current framework as it is for 2.5. However, my former mail was not a definitive plan. The first goal

Re: [Xenomai-core] Some thoughts on Analogy kernel side framework

2009-10-09 Thread Philippe Gerum
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 00:00 +0200, Alexis Berlemont wrote: If I understand well, I have gone too far too soon; the idea should be to keep the current framework as it is for 2.5. However, my former mail was not a definitive plan. The first goal was to share ideas. So, do not worry too much.

Re: [Xenomai-core] Some thoughts on Analogy kernel side framework

2009-10-08 Thread Philippe Gerum
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 01:26 +0200, Alexis Berlemont wrote: Hi, The last week, I have been working on the global architecture of the analogy project. I tried to sum-up the main characteristics of Comedi. That was a start to figure out what shape analogy will get. Here are some notes

Re: [Xenomai-core] Some thoughts on Analogy kernel side framework

2009-10-08 Thread Alexis Berlemont
Hi, On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Philippe Gerum r...@xenomai.org wrote: On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 01:26 +0200, Alexis Berlemont wrote: Hi, The last week, I have been working on the global architecture of the analogy project. I tried to sum-up the main characteristics of Comedi. That was a

[Xenomai-core] Some thoughts on Analogy kernel side framework

2009-10-07 Thread Alexis Berlemont
Hi, The last week, I have been working on the global architecture of the analogy project. I tried to sum-up the main characteristics of Comedi. That was a start to figure out what shape analogy will get. Here are some notes on that subject: 1) Comedi drivers are not common Linux drivers. In