Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 19:44:30 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: scottl@samsco.org Cc: svn-src-projects@FreeBSD.org, xcllnt@mac.com, nwhitehorn@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r208850 - projects/ppc64/sys/powerpc/include Message-ID: <20100606.194430.242248466057854597.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <C9595D21-993D-4B9B-990A-6AF86031F40A@samsco.org> References: <516EEDC6-069A-4780-84DF-BBFF43ABCDE5@samsco.org> <D700E0EE-EAEB-41C6-AC00-9E4D7276BBE9@mac.com> <C9595D21-993D-4B9B-990A-6AF86031F40A@samsco.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
In message: <C9595D21-993D-4B9B-990A-6AF86031F40A@samsco.org>
Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> writes:
: On the specific topic of BUS_SPACE_UNRESTRICTED, that's a definition
: that seems to have been "borrowed" from the bus_space API. Maybe at
: one time there was a desire to marry bus_space (bus.h) and bus_dma
: together in some fashion, but I don't see that having any practical
: value now. bus_dma.h and bus.h are separate interfaces and
: shouldn't be sharing definitions, as far as I'm concerned. If there
: are any disagreements on this, I'm happy to hear them.
busdma started out life as being dependent on bus_space. Today, it
still depends on bus_addr_t and bus_size_t, etc.
BUS_SPACE_UNRESTRICTED appears to have only ever been used by bus_dma,
and never by bus_space itself. In fact, the whole family of
BUS_SPACE_MAX{SIZE,ADDR}_{24,32}BIT appear to be MI as well. And
BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE is defined wrong for at least amd64....
Warner
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100606.194430.242248466057854597.imp>