Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:22:35 +0900 From: NAKAGAWA Yoshihisa <y-nakaga@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Nathan Dorfman <nathan@rtfm.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PAO Integration? Message-ID: <199812150822.RAA02605@chandra.eatell.msr.prug.or.jp> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 13 Dec 1998 15:19:22 PST." <199812132319.PAA00332@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> - We aren't CopycatBSD; the "new bus" group is attempting to develop > a new, better approach to handling the bus/bridge/device > relationships. "newconfig" is better than what we have right now, > but it is not good enough. Why do you make another framework ? Why not improve 4.4BSD bus and config code ? FreeBSD, it is 4.4BSD based OS. If you want to make new framework, why FreeBSD ? I think FreeBSD is one of 4.4BSD-children, and I want to use BSD like OS, not Linux. I want to integrate other BSDs, if possible. (I know, it is too hard really.) "newconfig aproach" is improvement NetBSD-current bus and config code. > - Bus architecture "incompatibility" is not actually a significant > issue. We are already 100% bus architecture incompatible with the > other BSDs, change simply for compatibility's sake won't give us any > benefits, and it would stifle any attempt to do better. Right now > the few drivers that are shared amongst the BSD's all have different > bus interface code anyway; there is nothing that will get "worse" if > we change the mechanics of the interface. There are also things > that we are trying to do that can't be done with newconfig (at > least, as it is right now - for sure it too can be modified). At least, I want to reduce driver porting cost. In "newconfig", its cost from other BSDs is quite low. > - Static configuration is evil. More specifically, static > configuration is a special case of dynamic configuration. > "newconfig" does static configuration very well, but the "newconfig" > architecture is not at all suitable for dynamic configuration. Some case, static configuration is very useful. For example, 1 floppy router like PicoBSD, and etc .... And "newconfig" is not static configuration only, also dynamic configuration can use. We are planning add UserConfig to "newconfig", it is *true* dynamic configuration. #Old NetBSD configuration problem, it is NOT already exist. On "new-bus", How to handle boot device like console, fd, wd, ... ? > I don't mean to say "newconfig is bad", so much as to say "new bus is > better again". OK, But I think "newconfig is better". Better "source code" should be win others. I think it is correct. I want to talk by "source code". "source code" is our common language. :-) -- NAKAGAWA, Yoshihisa y-nakaga@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp nakagawa@jp.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812150822.RAA02605>