Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Hi Jan, > > currently the RT-Socket-CAN drivers maintains it's own version or > release number. As RT-Socket-CAN is part of Xenomai, I do not see the > need for it (and so far I did not update it). What is the intended use > of "driver_version" in "struct rtdm_device"?
Actually, I was thinking about this too yesterday. The idea of the separate versioning for RTDM drivers is to signal the users if something in the driver really changed. It's fairly obvious what to do with it for out-of-tree drivers, but for in-tree it might be worth considering the policy. The current model, maintained more or less properly for the existing drivers, is to increment independently of Xenomai according to major or minor changes. One may ease this burden for the driver developer by simply filling in Xenomai's version here. That would just let the revisions increase on every Xenomai release, even if the driver remained untouched. The tag would still have a meaning for out-of-tree drivers, but for in-tree it would be fairly meaningless. Well, whatever is commonly preferred, it should then be applied consistently on all RTDM drivers in Xenomai. What are the opinions on this list (I will comment afterwards)? > Furthermore, there is also > "profile_version" (which does not show up n the Doxygen docu for some > strange reason). The automatic update from the latest SVN must be broken on www.xenomai.org, there is more stuff missing. > The latter one seems suitable to reflect CAN API changes. Exactly. That's why I incremented that in SVN trunk's rtcan.h. A correct profile version is definitely a must to let applications handle relevant changes. Jan
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaifirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core