From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 11 8:25:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D35437B404; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:25:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1BGPmi44623; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:25:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@village.org) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1BGPkL72892; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:25:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@village.org) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:25:08 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20020211.092508.58410452.imp@village.org> To: jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-newbus@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Adding newbus abstraction to parallel port devices From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20020211134143.A24762@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> References: <20020211134143.A24762@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message: <20020211134143.A24762@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> j mckitrick writes: : Since the purpose of the microsequences was (a) hardware abstraction and : (b) to increase speed, how could this be re-written to use newbus : instead without a performance loss? Can you give one or two examples? Most of the bus_space* macros compile down into the same sequences as the older inb/outb. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message