Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
If nothing else, the driver could be used as notes for writing a Linux-style driver. I know I've found existing code to be good reference for how something needs to be done, even if I've ultimately written my own.
HALs considered harmful
Posted Mar 17, 2005 10:27 UTC (Thu) by simlo (subscriber, #10866)
I must say I disagree with the policy of not using an HAL - which should be called an OSAL in this context. It minimizes the coupling between the Linux
kernel and the driver. Seperating stuff this way is always a good idea. It might hurt performance but the vendor in this case have a clear interrest in fixing that.
Posted Mar 18, 2005 0:25 UTC (Fri) by bk (guest, #25617)
It's basically impossible (and unfair) to ask a handful of kernel hackers to figure out 20 different HALs and how to modify and/or fix them. The only people that win are the hardware vendors; Linux and all of the community lose in the long run.
Posted Mar 24, 2005 10:02 UTC (Thu) by steven97 (guest, #2702)
You could put all HAL drivers in a separate drivers directory
and call those drivers "unsupported" (and taint the kernel like
what happens with binary-only drivers, etc.). And since the driver
is GPL'ed, someone motivated can always hack up a non-HAL driver
based on the vendor driver. Then, let darwinism do its thing.
IMHO, outright rejecting HAL drivers is just silly, another
example of zealotry that does not help Linux in the long run.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds