On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:21:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:54:00 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 
>>>  As I understand it the kernel may as well be the
>>> same, assuming the same processor, but the interfaces, i.e. drivers,
>>> to the rest of the stuff, isn't.
>> 
>> Um, no, actually, the APIs would be the same because it's the same
>> kernel code.
> 
> The kernel code (at least, the "same" kernel code) is generally not what
> provides the APIs to device drivers on embedded devices.

Device drivers talk to the kernel through APIs the kernel provides, 
though.

>> Wait, what?  You seem to be contradicting yourself....
> 
> No, he's saying you *could* do it, but generally that isn't what
> happens. People don't port X11 to their cell phone, they use directFB.
> People don't port Pulse to their cell phone, they use whatever API works
> with the hardware. They don't use udev, they just write directly to the
> USB devices they support. Etc.

DirectFB IIRC is in the kernel...X isn't.  Pulse isn't kernel-level 
stuff, it's middleware.  Sure the middleware isn't the same.

My router's kernel has devpts mounted and uses procfs.  Those are 
provided by the kernel (or by kernel drivers interfacing to the kernel).

> That the drivers are in the kernel tree on *your* devices doesn't mean
> they're part of the kernel on other devices.
> 
>  > unless you're talking
>  > about something like the proprietary NVidia or ATI drivers.
> 
> Well, unless you're talking about anything that's not generic, really.

"something like the [...]" - now does that imply anything other than 
"anything that's not generic"?

> Does the standard Linux kernel have device drivers for CDMA chips? 4"
> LED touchscreens? Power control modules for turning on and off various
> parts of various chips? GSM codec hardware?

Define "standard Linux kernel"?

Jim

Post a reply to this message