Is it possible to write vendor specific protocol WDM/WDF class
in [Device Drivers]
|
Prev: dsfksvcs.sys missing or corrupt
Next: Virtual Printer
From: Murugesan on 12 Sep 2009 03:50 Thanks again Tim. Which model will provide good & stabilized driver for Function/Bus driver approach, WDM or WDF ? Are latest microsoft drivers are developed in WDF ? "Tim Roberts" wrote: > Murugesan <Murugesan(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > >Thanks for your comments Tim. If I understand correctly, your idea is to make > >each layer treat its lower layer as a bus driver. So each layer should think > >itself as a function driver from its downstream driver point of view > >similarly it should think itself as a bus driver from its upstream driver > >point of view. Am I right ? > > Yes, I think so. > > >In other words, each layer of driver creates a FDO as a function driver & > >creates a PDO as a bus driver to load other function drivers on top of it. > >This is a good idea. > > Yes, that's the basic idea. > > >But does microsoft has provided any document for > >implementing our own class drivers( referring to DLL coupling ....). If yes, > >could you kindly tell me where can I find such docs ? > > No, it's exactly like linking to a DLL in user mode. One half gets built > as a kernel DLL with an import library, and the other half uses the import > library and produces a driver. > > However, like the user-mode DLL model, it doesn't really make sense if > there's only one instance of each. The Microsoft model makes sense because > there are hundreds of miniports linking to each port driver. > -- > Tim Roberts, timr(a)probo.com > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. >
From: Maxim S. Shatskih on 13 Sep 2009 05:42 > Thanks again Tim. Which model will provide good & stabilized driver for > Function/Bus driver approach, WDM or WDF ? To write a new driver from scratch? WDF. >Are latest microsoft drivers are developed in WDF ? Latest - yes. In Win7, even the old 1394 and CD/DVD drivers are rewritten in WDF. -- Maxim S. Shatskih Windows DDK MVP maxim(a)storagecraft.com http://www.storagecraft.com
From: eagersh on 14 Sep 2009 10:02 On Sep 12, 3:50 am, Murugesan <Muruge...(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Thanks again Tim. Which model will provide good & stabilized driver for > Function/Bus driver approach, WDM or WDF ? Are latest microsoft drivers are > developed in WDF ? A lot of drivers develop could be developed by using WDF but not all, compare to WDM. You need to check documentation on WDF which type of drivers it supports now. And WDF adds new type drivers in every release of WDK. It is good technology. If you need develop a new stuff from scratch and such type of driver supported by WDF you definitely should choose WDF. In this case, you would keep your time for developing and debugging. Igor Sharovar
From: Doron Holan [MSFT] on 14 Sep 2009 13:30 if no port driver (ndis, scsiport, avstream, etc) is involved, KMDF can always be used. when a port driver is involved, KMDF can still be used in different circumstances d -- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. "eagersh" <eagersh20(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7cb56afd-5e8b-4eb0-9f42-096b559e33f8(a)z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 12, 3:50 am, Murugesan <Muruge...(a)discussions.microsoft.com> > wrote: >> Thanks again Tim. Which model will provide good & stabilized driver for >> Function/Bus driver approach, WDM or WDF ? Are latest microsoft drivers >> are >> developed in WDF ? > A lot of drivers develop could be developed by using WDF but not all, > compare to WDM. You need to check documentation on WDF which type of > drivers it supports now. And WDF adds new type drivers in every > release of WDK. It is good technology. If you need develop a new stuff > from scratch and such type of driver supported by WDF you definitely > should choose WDF. In this case, you would keep your time for > developing and debugging. > > Igor Sharovar
From: Murugesan on 15 Sep 2009 01:53
Thanks for your comment Doron. I have different layers of drivers meant for Host IO interfaces(PCI, USB), transport layer, protocol layer. The protocol layer driver will be a SCSI mini port driver. Can KMDF be used for developing all layers of drivers in the stack ? "Doron Holan [MSFT]" wrote: > if no port driver (ndis, scsiport, avstream, etc) is involved, KMDF can > always be used. when a port driver is involved, KMDF can still be used in > different circumstances > > d > -- > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. > > > "eagersh" <eagersh20(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:7cb56afd-5e8b-4eb0-9f42-096b559e33f8(a)z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > > On Sep 12, 3:50 am, Murugesan <Muruge...(a)discussions.microsoft.com> > > wrote: > >> Thanks again Tim. Which model will provide good & stabilized driver for > >> Function/Bus driver approach, WDM or WDF ? Are latest microsoft drivers > >> are > >> developed in WDF ? > > A lot of drivers develop could be developed by using WDF but not all, > > compare to WDM. You need to check documentation on WDF which type of > > drivers it supports now. And WDF adds new type drivers in every > > release of WDK. It is good technology. If you need develop a new stuff > > from scratch and such type of driver supported by WDF you definitely > > should choose WDF. In this case, you would keep your time for > > developing and debugging. > > > > Igor Sharovar > > |