In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Luoqi Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think it is difficult to implement such conversion because:
> >
> > - Not only bus space stuff also resource manager stuff need to
> > perform such conversion.
>
> Why? Both bus_space_handle_t and bus_space_tag_t
> I think it is difficult to implement such conversion because:
>
> - Not only bus space stuff also resource manager stuff need to
> perform such conversion.
Why? Both bus_space_handle_t and bus_space_tag_t are supposed to be
opaque types. Resource manager needs not know the implementation
Luoqi Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could set the handle to point to the structure instead:
I think it is difficult to implement such conversion because:
- Not only bus space stuff also resource manager stuff need to
perform such conversion.
- The type of the bus_space_handle_t
> > Why have two files bus_at386.h and bus_pc98.h? I386_BUS_PIO_IND should be
> > able to live with I386_BUS_PIO and I386_BUS_MEMIO happily together.
>
> Because they are different in the type of bus_space_tag_t from each
> other. It is the u_long in PC/AT and the structure in PC-98. For
> exam
Luoqi Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We shouldn't need bus_simple_create_bsh(). All drivers ought to use
> rman_get_bushandle()/rman_get_bustag() to retrieve the bus handle and tag,
> and use them in bus_space_read/write calls to perform device io. Drivers
> that don't do that should be fixed.
> Do you have any comment anout the patch? If there isn't any big
> problem, I hope to commit it to current.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> I wrote:
> > Do you remember this topic? I have revised the indirection support
> > patch. What I have changed are:
> > - to make diff files more readable
> >
Do you have any comment anout the patch? If there isn't any big
problem, I hope to commit it to current.
Thank you.
I wrote:
> Do you remember this topic? I have revised the indirection support
> patch. What I have changed are:
> - to make diff files more readable
> - introduce the bus_s
Do you remember this topic? I have revised the indirection support
patch. What I have changed are:
- to make diff files more readable
- introduce the bus_simple_create_bsh() that creates
a bus_space_handle_tag from a base address.
I have made PC98 GENERIC98 kernel and i386 LINT kernel a
FreeBSD-hackers list is added.
KATO Takenori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't realize the difference in type of bus_space_handle_t. So,
> bus.h needs to be separated into bus_at386.h and bus_pc98.h.
I revised bus space patch. This patch does:
1. copy bus.h to bus_at386.h. The bus_at
KATO Takenori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Only one #ifdef in the diff makes it needless. In this patch,
I didn't realize the difference in type of bus_space_handle_t. So,
bus.h needs to be separated into bus_at386.h and bus_pc98.h.
---+
Oops, I forget to include patches.
KATO Takenori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attached patches provides indirection support in bus space stuff
> (submitted by Takahashi-san <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with minor modification
> by me).
>
> I <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >3. Make new sys/i386/in
Attached patches provides indirection support in bus space stuff
(submitted by Takahashi-san <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with minor modification
by me).
I <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>3. Make new sys/i386/include/bus.h file as:
> #ifdef PC98
> #include
> #else
> #include
>
I'm planning to commit the bus space code(*) supporting indirection
into current for PC-98. As far as I know, only PC-98 needs
indirection. So, it will be enabled only when the `PC98' is defined
to avoid performance loss on IBM-PCs.
(*)The code is submitted by Takahashi-san <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
13 matches
Mail list logo