From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 5 10:22: 0 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950CB37B405 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:21:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97] ident=root) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #6) id 157KWi-000Il4-00 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 18:21:56 +0100 Received: (from jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) id f55HLpg91184 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 18:21:51 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from jcm) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 18:21:51 +0100 From: j mckitrick To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: newbussifying drivers Message-ID: <20010605182151.A90883@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG The newbus routines use a certain amount of overhead, but once done, you forget about it. In some device drivers, the probe methods often need to try a variety of hardware ports. In the past, inb/outb was used, along with an often hardcoded port address. Does it make sense to call bus_allocate_resource for every hardware port we probe? What is the best way to handle this so NO inb/out is used, even for probing? jcm -- "I drank WHAT ?!" - Socrates To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message