Re: [RFQ] New driver architecture questions

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Julian Calaby wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:58, adam radford <aradford@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
>>> Taking drivers/net/e1000e as an
>>> example,
>>>
>>>        hw.h            hardware-specific defines, ~cross-OS
>>>        82571.c         code specific to 8257x chip family, ~cross-OS
>> 82571.c contains Linux specific code such as:  including Linux
>> specific header files, calls to msleep().
>>
>>>        ich8lan.c       code specific to ICH8+ chip family, ~cross-OS
>> ich8lan.c contains Linux specific code such as:  might_sleep(),
>> mutex_trylock(), mutex_unlock(), udelay(), msleep(), writel(), readl().
>>
>> Perhaps this is a bad example?  It seems like the "common layer"
>> sections that are "cross-OS" shouldn't contain any Linux specific code at all.
> 
> I think the implication is that the cross-OS parts are coded, as it
> happens, in the linux coding style, using linux functions, but then a
> Windows layer maps these to Windows specific functions.

Correct.

	Jeff