Re: Minors remaining in Major 10 ??

[Andre Hedrick]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > >
> > > No, I think I understood perfectly well.  I said that if it's going to be
> > > bound to each block device subsystem it would make more sense to
> > > establish that tie explicitly -- if that isn't possible I'm a bit
> > > confused.
> > 
> > Okay, I am definitely not clear because I am leading the wrong direction.
> > A single char-device would access all of ATA or all of SCSI.
> > 
> 
> That's fine.  ATA and SCSI are a bit special because they have multiple
> majors -- something that I hope we can get rid of with the dev_t
> expansion anyway, but I think the principle still holds.

Hi Peter,

Regardless if we rip out the entire rule of majors for dev_t, will there
be a service dummy driver to various block-devices?  There is a real need
for this if we are going to get full control of the hardware by indirect
access obtain the functionality that I see and need in the near future.

I want to use KMOD to an advantage.

Assume removable device bays such that you can swap in any and every kind
of ata-atapi device and/or all scsi-devices, one needs to have a way to
tell the driver to do things that are not native to its general mode of
operations as of today.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development