Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 21:00:01 +0900 (JST) From: Takahashi Yoshihiro <nyan@FreeBSD.org> To: bde@zeta.org.au Cc: FreeBSD98-hackers@jp.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf files src/sys/i386/conf files.i386 Message-ID: <19991003210001T.nyan@dd.catv.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909272254200.707-100000@alphplex.bde.org> References: <199909270628.AAA08033@harmony.village.org> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909272254200.707-100000@alphplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909272254200.707-100000@alphplex.bde.org> Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > Indirect addressing would use the current bus space functions with offset 0, > e.g., bus_space_read_1(sc->tag, sc->line_status_port, 0). > sc->line_status_port can still be cached in a register variable, so we > lose mainly in MEMIO cases that could have used > bus_space_read_1(tag, iobase, com_lsr) and where the bus space function > isn't slowed down by more tests. Does your method assume bus_space_handle_t to be u_int? I think that we should not assume like this. and, there is not the much meaning that uses bus_space in your method. Certainly, Warner's method is inferior performance to your method. But, I think that it is not a big problem, because it is a very trivial thing. --- Takahashi Yoshihiro / nyan@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991003210001T.nyan>