From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:58:31 +0000 Subject: Re: hotplug TTD Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org "Grover, Andrew" wrote: > > Is it unreasonable, long-term, to move towards a unified Linux hotplug > architecture? > > Under both Windows and BeOS, a given bus driver is responsible for > enumerating the devices on it, and it tells a central "configuration > manager", who then is the one who loads the drivers. > > Having one entity who knows about all devices on a system is also great for > power management, and implementing suspend-to-memory and suspend-to-disk. > Not sure I completely understand this one. Given that all the different bus ("resource"?) types have different discovery mechanisms, I think you're proposing that, once discovered, they will be recorded in a database of some form? In a unified format? So we have, if you like, an array of objects each of which represents a device in the system, and they each have state, `eject', `powerdown' methods, etc? Heh. XircomNic is-a CardbusDevice is-a PCIDevice is-a Device is-a blah. It could get complex with devices behind bridges behind bridges. Is a bridge a device? Do we need to care about bridges? _______________________________________________ Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel