Re: [RFQ] New driver architecture questions

[Julian Calaby]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:58, adam radford <aradford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Taking drivers/net/e1000e as an
>> example,
>>
>>        hw.h            hardware-specific defines, ~cross-OS
>>        82571.c         code specific to 8257x chip family, ~cross-OS
>
> 82571.c contains Linux specific code such as:  including Linux
> specific header files, calls to msleep().
>
>>        ich8lan.c       code specific to ICH8+ chip family, ~cross-OS
>
> ich8lan.c contains Linux specific code such as:  might_sleep(),
> mutex_trylock(), mutex_unlock(), udelay(), msleep(), writel(), readl().
>
> Perhaps this is a bad example?  It seems like the "common layer"
> sections that are "cross-OS" shouldn't contain any Linux specific code at all.

I think the implication is that the cross-OS parts are coded, as it
happens, in the linux coding style, using linux functions, but then a
Windows layer maps these to Windows specific functions.

E.g. msleep(), mutex_trylock(), etc are implemented in the Windows
layer by mapping them to the Windows functions to do the same.

Thanks,

-- 

Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx
.Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/