From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Sep 30 05:01:16 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id FAA28729 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 05:01:16 -0700 Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id FAA28724 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 05:01:14 -0700 Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin [198.145.90.50]) by Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id EAA02183; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 04:59:52 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id FAA01914; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 05:01:08 -0700 Message-Id: <199509301201.FAA01914@corbin.Root.COM> To: Bruce Evans cc: julian@ref.tfs.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: correctness of isa.c In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 30 Sep 95 21:48:49 +1000." <199509301148.VAA00595@godzilla.zeta.org.au> From: David Greenman Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 05:01:03 -0700 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >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