On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@gnu.org>wrote:
> 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. OK, not big is a good message:) Thanks, Cong Zhang
