From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Fri Oct 14 15:31:15 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9162C11838; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:31:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citapm.icyb.net.ua (citapm.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A73EBCE7; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:31:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citapm.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id SAA09427; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:31:11 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1bv4Rz-000KyQ-Lt; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:31:11 +0300 Subject: Re: SM bus ioctls incorrect in FreeBSD 11 To: Michael Gmelin References: <06929AC5-D350-4236-A813-56C862B58174@perftech.com> <20161014171126.74e6e2fc@bsd64.grem.de> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" From: Andriy Gapon Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:30:36 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161014171126.74e6e2fc@bsd64.grem.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:31:15 -0000 On 14/10/2016 18:11, Michael Gmelin wrote: > For some history on these changes, please see also [1] and [2] (there > were a few discussions and the revision was bumped, I also tried to > get some attention, but not enough it seems). > > Given your recent changes to iicbus in HEAD, I think it would be best to > MFC those and go with Option 4 or, if that's to drastic, go with > Option 1. I am leaning towards this approach as well. > Thanks for cleaning after me. You asked for a discussion and reviews. I can not recall what I was doing at that time, but I completely ignored the development and for that I can only blame myself. > [1]https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2015-March/016972.html > [2]https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2015-May/017157.html I also agree that having a thin library on top of the ioctl would be a convenience. -- Andriy Gapon