Re: Questions about the device driver framework

[Daniel Wagner]

> Yes, but i don't understand why deva would be a bottleneck. If the ddf 
> would be a library on top of deva.

I was talking about the server deva approach.

> Also this would make ddf easier to port on different (l4?)-os. You would 
> just write a replacement for deva, no need for a virtual driver for 
> every os.

It makes no difference how deva is implemented, it should be the only
part which is os dependent.  If deva is a server the virtual drivers
have to be written separately.  If deva is a library they have to be
written inside deva.  In the end it doesn't make any difference you
have to write them.

> And all this libraries (that we can call deva) shouldn't rely on 
> os-dependant facilities, because there could be not.

The ddf has to be self containing.  But as the drivers don't need all
fancy c library functionanlity the libraries can be very slim.

daniel