[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080111213840.E1B9028CD74@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:38:40 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: greg@...ah.com, 640e9920@...il.com
Cc: xiaofanc@...il.com, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
pmarques@...popie.com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] libusb / in-kernel usb driver criteria
> > > So, to get the ball rolling, here are some factors that IMHO
> > > help decide in which side to implement a driver:
> > >
> > > - if the driver ties a hardware device to an existing
> > > in-kernel interface (network, block, serial, bluetooth,
> > > video4linux, etc.), it should probably be implemented
> > > in-kernel.
> >
> > Agreed, I think this is clear.
>
> Yes, this the primary decision point, everything after this depends on
> lots of variables :)
Including a pragmatic concern: performance requirements.
Today's usbfs-based userspace drivers don't get any zerocopy
benefits. So if you're passing around enough data that your
target environment needs a zerocopy I/O model (maybe it's got
to run on an embedded system with a small battery and not much
spare CPU power), that can argue in favor of a kernel driver.
I don't know whether the "usbfs2" work addresses that issue.
- Dave
> Agreed. It all depends on the situation, we have kernel drivers for
> devices that can be done in userspace, but not as cleanly or nicely, and
> so, they stay as kernel drivers.
>
> In the end, it comes down to individual cases, so let's handle them at
> that level, it's easier that way.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists