"Rudolf" <drivers.be-hold@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > - but maybe we're also misunderstanding each other; usually a > > component has only one active caretaker. > I guess that's what it boils down to: you have to try to split up > stuff > into pieces so that people can work on different pieces in the same > time. If people want to work on the same piece, you have to find a > way > to split that in two pieces. IF that can't be done, then one should > have 'control'. Just my point of view. :-) Yes, that's how it should be done. It's hard to work on a moving target; but still, the one in control should be able to accept patches that affect his playground. > > too. And that would be the usual open source approach; other people > > don't change your code, they just send you patches to look over and > > eventually commit. > That's something I can work with, and indeed: I'd welcome such stuff. > It even came up once or twice in the past ;-) > There's one limitation however: I need to be able to keep up. (no > prob > yet) Yes, I hope that I someday will have problems like this in the kernel, too :-) > > BTW I will need to touch them in a few weeks, but I'll give you a > > note before. The reason is that I am (slowly) in the process of > > completing the new hardware/driver recognition stuff, and this > > causes a new driver interface to be established. > OK. Please explain before though. BTW do we also have to set that I will, definitely. There will be at least one newsletter about this, as well as a good piece of documentation (when I get to it and the API is more stable :-)) > seperate 'allow cloning' flag for creating areas and such? > As long as that doesn't interfere with R5 / Zeta, that would be OK to > add as well I think. I am not sure if it interferes with R5/Zeta, but for now we need this flag on Haiku (maybe we later want to dump that flag again, but I think we should keep it). We can try if it'll work there, but we can always make it a compile time solution as well. > > Of course, I will do it in a way that still allows your drivers to > > be > > used on R5. It will also only affect the kernel driver, not the > > accelerant. > Thank god :) The main concerns for me are: > ->driver should keep working on R5/Zeta > ->driver's speed should not be influenced in a negative manner > ->interface driver/accelerant should remain as it is > ->interface system/accelerant should remain as it is. > (All R1 of course) > > Agreed?? Yes :-) Mostly the device recognition part is affected, anyway. > >As part of that, though, I will also need to remove the > > .driver part of your driver names. I also thought about renaming > > your > > drivers to identify them easier (ie. neomagic instead of nm, nvidea > > instead of nv, matrox instead of mga). This change could be > > restricted to the Haiku build as well, though. > Renaming the drivers is OK. It's of no concern to me: just make sure > they can easily be identified indeed ;-) > Please keep the packages working as well (modify if needed)... Okay, I will. > No need to restrict that to Haiku Build I think BTW (?) Well, the question is if you want to update your installation scripts to remove the old drivers ;-) Bye, Axel.