Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 20:58:10 +0000 From: "Brian McGovern (bmcgover)" <bmcgover@cisco.com> To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Standardizing digital, analog control points in the kernel? Message-ID: <b45ed5b6d5d74a35b6e7af0fdae84110@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
All,
This is a question that I'm sure could span multiple lists and multiple p=
erspectives; for example, there is probably significant input to be had fro=
m -arm. However, I'm going to ask here to try to get the biggest collection=
of feedback.
I've been working with a number of I/O capable devices for awhile - Pis, =
Beaglebones, for example, but also a lot of the USB Velleman boards, X-10, =
Insteon, etc.
I've been contemplating a project to consolidate the various control poin=
ts, with a certain amount of metadata, at the userland level and provide a =
standardized interface - most likely through a network socket via XML, some=
form of HTTP, a combination, or something else entirely. The reason would =
be to sufficiently abstract the various layers so that domain experts could=
focus on specific areas - for example, device driver writers could focus o=
n adding more devices which provide control points without needing to provi=
de server or applications bits, UI writers and control applications can wor=
ry about looking pretty and communicating through a language-independent in=
terface, and so forth.
The question I have is whether a.) Anyone is looking at doing something s=
imilar, and b.) if anyone is looking at doing something similar inside the =
kernel as a device driver, filesystem, or other variation (e.g. I'm thinkin=
g of something like ucom, where the low-level hardware drivers plug in to i=
t to provide a generic user interface on top)?
-B
=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b45ed5b6d5d74a35b6e7af0fdae84110>