On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:36:57PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt > <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 20:45 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote: > > > >> Either fought or embraced. To the extent that it is possible to focus > >> solely on Linux and ARM, one could image doing a good HAL. > > > > That will come with a huge amount of comunity resistance sadly, but I > > can imagine distros liking it. > > > > In general, I much prefer having all the necessary native drivers in the > > kernel, and the device-tree to provide the right representation, and > > avoid trying to abstract "methods" via a HAL. It's the Linux philosophy > > as much as possible (even when defeated by ACPI). > > > > But if we're going to be forced by vendors into HALs, we can also make > > sure that whatever they come up with is half reasonable :-) > > I think there is more to be concerned about regarding binary blobs > than HALs. Many of the new SoCs require closed binaries to use all > the hardware right now (graphics cores in particular). > > Board vendors seem to be taking the plunge and modifying the kernel > rather than trying to create a HAL for driving board specific > features.
In my view HALs are a bad idea, they constrain you to one calling method and make it difficult to evolve support in the kernel. I belive it is part of the reason that we've always tried to avoid a standardised kernel driver interface. -- Ben Q: What's a light-year? A: One-third less calories than a regular year. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev