> On Monday 13 March 2006 11:57, James Harper wrote: > > > > Any reason why lapd and kfifo are not prefixed by 'visdn_'? > > Because it is a generic module not strictly bound to visdn, as lapd is a > standalone module not bound to visdn core.
Fair enough. > > It seems a bit of a waste that visdn_configurator loads the hardware > > drivers when the ones that are required should have been loaded > > automatically by the operating system > > Yes, you're right. Modules management should be done by the operating > system through hotplug, unfortunately this is quite distro-dependent, > so I'm still indagating how to do that in the best way. > > Configuration should also be handled by hotplug (now udev) but the same > distro-specific issues arise. I can't quite imagine how this would look... could you elaborate? Some autoconfiguration could be achieved, but things like TE/NT mode would still need to be in a configuration script yes? > visdn_configurator is just a quick hack to allow an initial configuration > but it's not definitive at all. If I update my patch to remove the kfifo and lapd modules, and remove the modprobe of the hardware modules in visdn_configurator, would it be accepted? James _______________________________________________ Visdn-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.uli.it/mailman/listinfo/visdn-hackers
