On Sat, Mar 17, 2001, Miles Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2001 08:31:16 -0800, Dunlap, Randy wrote:
> > I'd like to see this settled (solved) in a way that is
> > best for Linux, USB, and Linux-USB users, and developers,
> > and I'm fairly sure that JE agrees with that.
> >
> > I'd prefer that selecting one UHCI HCD not be an
> > arbitrary decision, but that's not my decision to make.
> >
> > I also agree with David Johnson that USB device driver
> > developers should be able to expect consistent behavior
> > from any/all of the HCDs. It seems to me that we have
> > discussed this a few times in the past.
> >
> > When JE's uhci (alt-JE) HCD has bulk queueing and
> > PCI alloc consistent support (JE's own, or David's
> > pci_pool patch), it could easily be the one to choose.
>
> Agreed, but I'd like to hear from Johannes whether he agrees
> that having just one UHCI driver is the way to go and what
> selection process he intends to use. Johannes?
Since no one has had an opinion in the past, I was going to choose mine.
I'm sure that's hardly a surprise.
However, I wanted to fix all of the outstanding known bugs first.
There's little sense in removing usb-uhci since it does work in some
other situations that my driver does not work in. But once that has been
fixed, the last reason for keeping two drivers would be gone.
> > The criteria that you (Miles) listed are basically the ones
> > that I used for several months, along with at least one more,
> > which could be worded in many ways (examples):
> >
> > . which driver uses the kernel API more appropriately
> > or
> > . which driver is more "Linux-like"
> > or
> > . which driver abuses interrupts less
>
> Well, this all sounds good to me.
I don't mind if other people go through this process as well. Anyone?
I've kept those three criteria in mind when I was developing my driver.
> > In any case, that list of criteria wasn't sufficient to make
> > a decision. (repeating) We need HCDs that provide consistent
> > behavior for USB device drivers.
>
> That's why David and Roman's desire to share as much code as is
> possible, practical and useful makes a lot of sense to me.
> Of course, this presupposes that the hardware (UHCI, OHCI, EHCI)
> allows for common behavior. If I understand correctly, this
> isn't too much of a problem and the major differences between USB
> host-controller types are only slight performance differences
> (in the case of EHCI, I am referring to the backward compatibility
> slow-speed mode). Is that correct?
Mostly, yes.
> > However, in an open source world, there is always the
> > possibility that someone will/can come along and do
> > something better or faster than what's already there.
> > We have to accept that.
>
> Yeah. Please, noone take my desire to have only one driver in
> the tree as a criticism of anyone building new, redundant drivers.
> If you all can build a better mousetrap or HCD, as the case may
> be, please do. I'd just advocate the USB community agreeing to
> migrate to demonstrably better drivers whenever they become
> available and to jettison older drivers as soon as is practicable
> after the new, better drivers are introduced into the kernel tree.
Sure. The point we are at now is "better". I just have that one last bug
to fix before I send it to Linus.
JE
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
