Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:06:07 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Schmidt?= <sos@DeepCore.dk> To: Thomas Quinot <thomas@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: atapicam(4) as KLD? Message-ID: <4175497F.2000501@DeepCore.dk> In-Reply-To: <20041019165749.GA33059@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org> References: <20041013205141.GA874@galgenberg.net> <416DA856.9040703@vbservices.net> <20041015093908.GA11176@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org> <20041018234324.GA1270@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org> <4174B366.9010508@DeepCore.dk> <20041019165749.GA33059@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thomas Quinot wrote: > * S=F8ren Schmidt, 2004-10-19 : >=20 >=20 >>Well, if we need to go the newbus way, we need to do it completely, ie = >>get the ATA devices etc tied in that way as well. >=20 > I agree that this would be nice, but I do not see it as a prerequisite > to modularizing atapicam. But I do, just adding in the atapicam glue add even more kludges which I = dont want. >>know there has been a couble of others looking into this, so now is the= =20 >>time to chime in if thats the case. >=20 > Where are we standing with this effort? Who is working on it currently,= > and what has been implemented already? It was talked about on IRC long time ago in connection with making ATA=20 truely modular. Anyhow I have done some of the work myself some time ago instead of=20 using func ptrs, but abandoned it due to it being more messy than=20 helpfull for that purpose. I'll try to locate that tree in the woods=20 here, maybe that could be turned into what we want. So, as usual, I'm working on it :/ --=20 -S=F8ren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4175497F.2000501>