Zhang Cong, le Mon 07 Apr 2014 20:42:04 +0800, a écrit : > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@gnu.org> > wrote: > > Again, no. Drivers can work the way they prefer. The driver > infrastructure itself doesn't need a "bigplan", it is parts of it which > need their own. For instance, the IRQ issue I mentioned has its plan > by itself, and it doesn't need to interfere with the physical memory > allocation issue. > > > That's not sure, unless we have a plenty of driver works, we may need adjust > the infrastructure for the need or some new abstract .
Yes, but that new abstract will be independant from other matters concerning drivers. > Although we have driver infrastructure, no enough third part driver provider > now. > The audio driver and video driver may be part of hurd at first ( just on > repo's > view), at least some high level abstract, this need a plan. Sure. You need a plan for audio, a plan for video. But you don't need a plan for both audio & video at the same time, except some general Hurdish principles, but that's not big. Samuel
