Re: [MiNT] Shutdown() discussion

[Patrice Mandin <mandin.patrice@wanadoo.fr>]

Le Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:42:55 +0100 (CET)
Odd Skancke <ozk@atari.org> a écrit:

> > But the question of implementation is still the same: are you OK with
> > having ARAnyM specific code in APM.XDD or do you want us to develop
> > APM-ARANYM.XDD? If the former, what is the difference between this and
> > implementing it in the kernel itself? The CVS tree is the same, after
> > all. And if the latter (APM-machine.XDD) - can the kernel load the
> > right XDD at boot time automagically? Or is user required to
> > enable/disable the XDDs with an XBOOT style tool? That would be a step
> > back, IMHO.
> 
> I have nothing against the former method. This is an ARAnyM specific
> XDD, and the ARAnyM specific code is where it belongs. If I were to put
> an ATX PSU into my hades, and in some way connect it, I would have to
> make an APM-HADE.XDD. And the same for the Milan. You do see the
> difference between having this separately in an XDD rather than having
> it in the kernel itself? Dangerous to think "Only two things use this,
> so lets do it the easy-but-wrong way", as this may change.

I agree with Odd. It is much *cleaner* to make a .xdd providing a /dev/apm
device, having ioctl() doing the dirty work with hardware. Each .xdd
should check if the hardware it drives is present or not (Linux checks for
each known hardware adress to know if any Atari hardware is present. MiNT
could do the same, and provide a way to know the list of present hardware
features? This way each .xdd would not have to disable MMU, redirect bus
error, or any other diry work to check for hardware presence).

-- 
Patrice Mandin
WWW: http://membres.lycos.fr/pmandin/
Programmeur Linux, Atari
Spécialité: Développement, jeux