Xref: utzoo comp.music:3285 rec.music.synth:21565 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!dev0d.mdcbbs.com!pirk From: pirk@dev0d.mdcbbs.com Newsgroups: comp.music,rec.music.synth Subject: Re: MIDI BOF (now about a standard MIDI interface for UNIX) Message-ID: <1991May13.104507.1@dev0d.mdcbbs.com> Date: 13 May 91 10:45:07 GMT References: <13016@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1991May10.000511.7113@cbnewsh.att.com> Organization: McDonnell Douglas M&E, Cypress CA Lines: 70 Nntp-Posting-Host: sysdd Nntp-Posting-User: kelly In article <1991May10.000511.7113@cbnewsh.att.com>, tjt@cbnewsh.att.com (timothy.j.thompson) writes: > From article <13016@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, by mccanne@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Steven McCanne): >> We need a generic interface that we can build portable unix midi >> software on top of. I propose that we try establish such a standard. >> The interfaces I know of are: >> - my driver >> - the Sun driver >> - Tim Thompson's MPU /dev/midi driver >> What do people think? Should we even bother with a uniform kernel >> interface? Or, should it be in library routines? Or, should we all >> use our own interfaces? > > This will be a good thing to discuss at the MIDI BOF at USENIX. Since I, and possibly many others cannot make this conference, it might be a good idea to bounce some ideas around in the conference.... Also, it seems that I am a bit late to this thread, and have missed the descriptions and merits of the above drivers, so I ask patience if my comments are out of line.... > - A list of MIDI application types would be useful > in order to see the range of needs. I would think that all applicaton types (I hope this means sequencers, etc) would be included. I am unclear regarding the use of "interface".... Software I/F or Hardware I/F? > - Is the goal to make it easy to port and write high-level software, > or to make it easy (and possible) to write low-level support for *any* > type of MIDI interface? Perhaps only the low-level interface should > be standardized - upper levels can be provided in libraries, > and we are unlikely to get them right on the first try. How about standardizing on a set I/F in the "unix box" and use an external MIDI controller card. This way, any box with the standard I/F (let's say a parallel I/F) could be running *any* standard midi application and expect to see the same data in the same format. I use the PC as an example... With an 8 bit parallel I/F on a unix box, you might be able to connect to a 8 bit PC midi card external to the machine, and with a read/write /dev/midi_io device driver, talk to the midi card from a PC emulation window on the unix box. This is only an example to test the feasibility of the idea. > > Lots of issues. My preference would be to start simple and standardize > some (hopefully less controversial) low-level interface, and work up > from there. I'm sure we'll have some good discussions at the MIDI BOF > about all this. Hopefully someone there will have experience with > Apple's MIDI Manager, which is one example of how it can be done. > Of course, our goal should be a UNIX-style solution (I hope), > which may or may not be similar. > I agree that the best idea is to standardize. My only comment to add is that I have found very few systems (even from the same vendor) that have any kind of "standard" bus structure (ouch!, I mean a card from vendor A rarely works in a system from vendor B). This leads me to vote for the external interface and write device drivers utilizing the systems "standard" I/F's. Steve... :-) -- .Steve Pirk.......midit.....Voice: (714) 952-5516......................... ..McDonnell Douglas M&E..Internet: pirk@dev0d.mdcbbs.com.................. ...5701 Katella Ave..........UUCP: uunet!mdcbbs!dev0d.mdcbbs!pirk......... ....Cypress, CA. 90630........PSI: PSI%31060099980019::DEV0D::PIRK........ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The opinions expressed herein, are probably not those of MDC, and I'm not sure if I can even call them mine......."