Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 05:01:03 -0700 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: julian@ref.tfs.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: correctness of isa.c Message-ID: <199509301201.FAA01914@corbin.Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 30 Sep 95 21:48:49 %2B1000." <199509301148.VAA00595@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Shouldn't pmap_mapdev() be declared in a machine-independent header and >used in future drivers in other systems? It has no i386 dependencies >except for the type of a physical address. How did old versions of BSD >handle mapping physical addresses for device drivers? Why doesn't VM >distinguish between the types of physical and virtual addresses? It has no i386 dependencies as far as the interface of the function, but the function itself has almost no independencies. :-) > How did old versions of BSD handle mapping physical addresses for device >drivers? Why doesn't VM I don't know how old versions of BSD worked in this regard. They probably did something really VAX specific and disgusting (like plugging the page tables in the device driver). > Why doesn't VM distinguish between the types of physical and virtual >addresses? I don't understand this question. Different types? Do you mean kernel/user or managed/unmanaged, or what? -DG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509301201.FAA01914>