Re: Why gameport port address as control?

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

At Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:24:41 +0200 (CEST),
Jaroslav wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> 
> > Both the ymfpci and ens1370 drivers use the control API to enable and
> > select the address of the gameport. Using module parameters would have
> > been somewhat easier.
> > 
> > I don't really understand why this has been done. Is there any
> > situation where the ability to change the gameport parameters at
> > runtime is actually useful?
> 
> It is possible to change the code. My idea was to use control API, 
> because we can create a list of available addresses. It is more
> user friendly than module option, but the final result is same.

i see both merits and demerits by this.

with the control API, we can enable/disable and even configure the
gameport on the fly.  this sounds not bad.

but, it also leads to a danger that the resource changes happening
even after gameport drivers running.  this might be a possible reason
of crashes due to resource conflicts.

thus, from the viewpoint of safety, allocation of the resource at the
initial stage would be better.  in this sense, module parameters look
easier and more straightforward.


Takashi


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner.
Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission!
INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php