On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 04:20:25PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote: > I think a (partial) bitmask is the simpler interface. I'd think the most > common case is setting up access for just one device, i.e. a small > contiguous range of io ports, so supplying a starting port number and a > word or less of all-ones is very easy for the client side. And bottom > line, that's the Linux ioperm interface and we're best off having every > actual program in question just use that interface and nothing > Hurd-specific (at least for now), so we can change it all later.
The ioperm interface is a starting point and a number, so that would be i386_io_port_create (mach_port_t device_master, io_reg_t start, int num) and that would be fine by me (it requires multiple operations if you want multiple ranges, but that's not the common case). Passing bit masks directly seems to be less practical. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
