Thank you very much Gilles for the explanations! I think I understand the overall picture better now.
Thank you, Andrey. On 16 April 2012 01:52, Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperd...@xenomai.org> wrote: > On 04/16/2012 01:47 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> On 04/16/2012 12:53 AM, Andrey Nechypurenko wrote: >>> Hi Gilles, >>> >>> Thank you very much for such low-latency reply! :-) >>> >>>> RTDM is the API of choice for developing drivers for real-time >>>> applications using xenomai. >>> >>> Please correct me if I just misunderstand something here, but as I >>> understand, RTDM is an abstraction layer with concrete implementation >>> using xenomai API. As stated in the referenced paper from Jan Kiszka, >>> the original reason for introducing this layer was to achieve >>> portability across different RT solutions for Linux. Since that time, >>> a lot of considered RT solutions becomes irrelevant. In fact, I would >>> say, there are only Xenomai and preempt_rt. If this assumption is >>> true, then I can not see the advantages of the additional layer unless >>> it is more then just an abstraction layer. Does RTDM API makes certain >>> tasks easier/better compared to the similar native xenomai API? Just >>> to give concrete example - what is the advantage of using >>> rtdm_task_init() vs. rt_task_create or xnintr_init() vs. >>> rtdm_irq_request()? >> >> The native API is designed to write applications, not drivers. The RTDM >> API is designed to write drivers. Using the native API in user-space is >> deprecated, the native API is made for user-space. > > Using the native API in *kernel-space* is deprecated, the native API is > made for user-space. Writing applications in kernel-space is not what we > recommend, as much as writing drivers in user-space. > > -- > Gilles. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list Xenomai-help@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
