Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:39:49 +0100 From: Mark Santcroos <marks@ripe.net> To: "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@iteration.net>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, benno@freebsd.org Subject: Re: adding an address family Message-ID: <20010117113949.A29173@ripe.net> In-Reply-To: <20010116233409.A9413@peorth.iteration.net>; from keichii@iteration.net on Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:34:09PM -0600 References: <20010116103212.C12906@ripe.net> <3A649154.B345C634@elischer.org> <20010116194307.A28087@ripe.net> <3A64B6C2.6D0ADF97@elischer.org> <20010116232326.A6513@ripe.net> <20010116233409.A9413@peorth.iteration.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:34:09PM -0600, Michael C . Wu wrote: > | Ok I'm trying to make a port of the IrDA stack on Linux to FreeBSD. > | I've now written the driver for the chipset on my laptop, and I am ready > | with that to pass data to an upper layer. > > Basically, we really do not want the Linux solution of doing IrDA. > Using Netgraph would be much simpler. Email me and I will let you > into my CVS repo of the IrDA ongoing work that Benno and I have done. > Benno is working hard on FreeBSD/PPC kernel porting. I am doing the > FreeBSD/PowerPC userland porting as well as I18N wchar* changes. > Both of us are swamped, and the IrDA work has stagnated. I think we > will gladly hand over the work. :) Ok, that's fine with me, I am eager to see what progress you two have made. > | Following to that one I had another question: > | > | 2. Is Netgraph going to be the future in FreeBSD network stacks. Iaw, will > | tcp/ip be based on Netgraph in the future or will it just be a nice > | extension but not more. > > Possibly, but why? TCP/IP can be very resource intensive. After all, > we have systems designed to only do TCP/IP, servers. > IrDA, at maximum performance, cannot be higher than ~4mbit/sec, compared > to gigabit ethernet and ATM networks that FreeBSD supports. > At such high levels of I/O and CPU time, we can afford to have TCP/IP > services in the kernel. On the contrary, IrDA is ugly and should > be organized by Netgraph. *nods* That was the answer I expected, but wanted it to know for sure. > | The reason I ask it is this: Is it wise to implement my protocol based on > | Netgraph (so I can do it as a kernel module), or should I just build it > | into the kernel? > > Netgraph all the way. (/me pondering what Julian is thinking) > IrDA is a bunch of messed up ugly protocols that can simply be > different ng_* Netgraph nodes. I get the feeling I should use netgraph *grin* > Do you have the IrDA ISA driver? If so, for what chipset? > Is yours the National Semiconductor Super IO chipsets? > Can I see the IrDA ISA driver? :) I've written the PCI IrDA driver for my Toshiba laptop, the OBOE chipset. I am willing to write other drivers too, if someone can supply me with the needed hardware to develop for. One thing I will look at tonight is an old Tulip laptop I have laying around somewhere. It has an infrared port, but I have no idea what chipset. My driver is strongly based on the OBOE driver from Linux, so porting the other drivers should not be a big problem probably. (This one costed me a bit more time because it was my first PCI driver) Mark -- Mark Santcroos RIPE Network Coordination Centre PGP KeyID: 1024/0x3DCBEB8D PGP Fingerprint: BB1E D037 F29D 4B40 0B26 F152 795F FCAB 3DCB EB8D To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010117113949.A29173>