> > > > Eventually, it'd make
> > > > more sense not to compile specific device IDs into drivers.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because the original driver has no strong reason to know, or care,
> > about every device that's going to be compatible enough to use it.
>
> It is at least usefull to be able to tell the user of a driver (a human or a
> daemon) which devices it is *known* to work with.
Absolutely; but what levels of "work with" are OK in this case?
Maybe the administrator has a lot more current information than
the developer.
> > > Adding support for a device in a driver will at least force you to recompile
> > > the driver, so you do not create extra work. It would also automatically
> > > update your bindings when you upgrade the driver.
> >
> > That's fine for the bindings that are compiled-in. What about for
> > cases where a new device is compatible with another, and someone
> > just wants to spend thirty seconds getting it up (hack the admin
> > database) rather than tracking down the latest/buggiest driver or
> > figuring out how to modify that driver herself (or himself)?
>
> This can be easily provided with a little utility that can add entries to the
> daemon's database. This is not something that is needed for general use, so
> this can be a 'debug' feature.
I'm not sure I can see that. Someone ships a new device, and to install
it there need to be some database additions. I don't want to see this
become something only linux distributors can possibly do.
> Yeah, I realize what I suggest would impact about every subsystem and every
> module in the kernel. It is not a good idea to do this for 2.4 :-)
> I was planning a bit more research in what is available/feasable/nescessary
> and then write up a serious proposal. Consider this a brainstorm session :-)
We all need those regularly!
- Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
