[openbeos] Re: Add-ons/Module problems/ideas??

François wrote:
> However I've been wondering about issues like rescanning, but I still want to
> see how usb mosules deals with this before complaining =)

The way "usbd" module ask devfs to reload the driver who register him 
wanting being notified when some specified USB device(s) appear or disapper 
on USB bus is unknown, that's right.
In fact, the USBD way of doing was said to be a prototype of a new, more 
dynamic, driver API by Be Inc. engineer in some BNewsletter (can't find 
it now, sorry). We'll have to look at this issue, but Michael Phibbs 
don't plan binary compatibility with USB drivers, or did I miss something 
here?

> Wondering also if we need to keep modules from publishing devfs entries
> and leave that to drivers, or we could allow both.
> While it could bemore flexible, it could also become a real mess faster :)

Well, nothing prevent one binary image to export both driver API 
("init_driver", "publish_devices", etc) and kernel module(s) API 
("modules" data symbol). 

If a kernel module need to publish a /dev/* entry, why it's not a 
*driver* instead? 
If some part of his code need to be (re)used by another driver(s), 
let's split it into a module and a driver (even in the same binary 
file!)... it's a the purpose of kernel modules, in fact.

-Philippe

Other related posts: