|
From: | Zhang Cong |
Subject: | Re: Upstreaming patches [Was: RFC: upstreaming debian/patches/exec_filename_* and the dde stuff] |
Date: | Tue, 8 Apr 2014 00:27:56 +0800 |
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.thibault@gnu.org>Yes, but that new abstract will be independant from other matters
> 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 .
concerning drivers.
Sure. You need a plan for audio, a plan for video. But you don't need
> 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.
a plan for both audio & video at the same time, except some general
Hurdish principles, but that's not big.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |