1i5t5.duncan at cox
Jul 14, 2012, 4:33 AM
Post #24 of 45
Graham Murray posted on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:13:56 +0100 as excerpted:
> "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes [at] waltdnes> writes:
>> Do you realize this would effectively kill linux in the embedded
>> device area? Udev, even without the systemd code, is simply to large
>> for embedded devices.
> But surely most embedded devices do not need hotplug functionality, they
> have a known, fixed, set of devices. So should static nodes in /dev/ not
> be sufficient?
Well, there's (kernel-side) devfs as well, as others have mentioned.
Meanwhile, "embedded" can mean different things to different users of the
term. I expect few would argue that onboard boot devices on embedded are
likely to change, but there's a lot of (arguably embedded) devices with
USB-host support these days, and some form of dynamic device-nodes, even
if it's just devfs, can make that much more flexible and easier to deal
What's interesting is the potential on such devices for USB-based
storage, displays, sound, net and HID, blurring the definition of
"embedded" even further, altho one would hope nobody tries to connect all
of those up to the same host USB port (via hub) at the same time as I can
just imagine the bandwidth management headaches trying to do so, thus
implying 2-3 USB host-ports, minimum.
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman