![]() ![]() to reading the source code of various kernel subsystems or of other device drivers, where the offending structures or functions were also used, to discover what values might be expected. In many cases the search was too long, so it could be simpler to pass to the final solution of anything, i.e. So after finding who did the changes, the mailing lists had to be searched for messages with the same authors or similar subjects to find any relevant information. That search was not too difficult, but I have never seen a message with the changes that will also explain what values must be put in the new members/parameters. The worst was when there were new structure members or function parameters, as there was no way to guess which values should be put in them.īecause, at least then, but I suppose that nothing has changed, there was no centralized document with the changes that need to be applied to drivers, the only way was to search the kernel mailing lists, to discover where was the patch that changed that structure or function. When structure members or function parameters were deleted, it could be hoped that it is enough to also delete them in the device driver, even if in some cases some earlier-executed initialization code had to be modified to make everything work like before. Point 1 was easily solved by a search through the entire Linux source tree. Some functions had parameters added or deleted Some structures had members added or deletedģ. Some reorganization of the kernel header files, which moved some definitions to other header files, which were not included in the previous driver code.Ģ. ![]() The 3 main reasons which broke the device driver after each new kernel release were:ġ. What was annoying was not the fact that almost every kernel release required modifications in the device driver, but the lack of a documentation about the kernel changes that is usable by someone who does not follow every day the kernel mailing lists. I had to update it after every Linux kernel release in order to be able to continue to use it. It was not official maintenance, it was just an unmaintained open-source device driver found somewhere, which was needed for my hardware. I have maintained for some time a Linux device driver a couple of years ago. Same for my mouse (I don't plugin it in every year) and any disk / pendrive I care to use. ![]() On the other side, my USB scanner from the 90s still works perfectly well. All I remember is that I couldn't work with that the last time I tried. Is my laptop going to die of old age before I have to replace it because I won't be able to use its graphic card anymore? BTW, the open source driver doesn't work well. I wonder what the latest compatible kernel will be. ![]() Apparently the next Ubuntu 22.04 is shipping with kernel 5.15 and there is a 418 package for that kernel. The latest binary driver supporting that card is version 418. That card is a Quadro K1100M in a HP ZBook 15. I told myself, no more ATI/AMD, let's buy one with an NVIDIA card. BTW, the open source driver didn't work well. I downgraded the kernel and kept using the laptop for a while. Actually AMD because they bought ATI in 2006. There were no more recent drivers so my take is that the kernel broke it and ATI didn't spend money to make their driver compatible with newer kernels. Well, my old laptop (HP nc8430 from 2006) graphic card worked perfectly up to some 3.x kernel, then it lost all sync with 3.y kernels (y > x). I'm sympathetic to a lot of libertarian ideas, but I wish people would give more acknowledgement to why people want regulation (in this case) before a drive-by "no government please" comment. It's so easy to throw out "no government" and so hard to talk past it, and I think this is one reason libertarian views like this often cause people to just roll their eyes and ignore. I'm frustrated because the "no regulation, no government" view hides a lot of nuance and shuts down conversations. Are you now okay with requiring companies to document their APIs for the benefit of consumers (in some cases at least)?Įither way, this conversation is frustrating to me, and one I wont continue here (you're, of course, welcome to respond and debate with others). The government protecting people's right to repair and utilize their physical possessions seems like a good thing.Īt this point you seem, to me, to have reversed position. It would give individuals more power over their own property - more power over their old school, physical possession, basic territoriality, property. I asked myself and answered: Requiring companies to document their hardware for right-to-repair or right-to-utilize reasons has no effect on life, and some effect on property. For each proposed change, ask whether we increase or decrease natural rights (especially to life and property). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |