Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 12:01:12 -0400 From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.0 - Isa devices not being probed Message-ID: <200005301601.MAA26766@etinc.com> In-Reply-To: <200005301532.IAA00992@mass.cdrom.com> References: <Your message of "Mon, 29 May 2000 13:01:07 EDT." <200005291700.NAA23834@etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 08:32 AM 5/30/00 -0700, you wrote: >> At 06:36 PM 5/27/00 -0700, Mike Smith wrote: >> >> Existing bus abstractions tend to let think that the same software driver >> >> can deal with different buses, bridges or IO methods without having to >> >> care about how these things actually behave, notably regarding buffering >> >> and ordering rules. This is untrue. >> > >> >A good bus abstraction lets you care as much or as little as necessary. >> >The NetBSD framework (which we use) allows you to do this. >> >> The best "portable" coding method is with memory-mapped registers, which >> seems to have been omitted from this "implementation", which is the gripe >> here. > >It "seems" that you haven't "read" any of the "documentation" or the >"code" either. No one has indicated that there is any docs on it, only that they are "in the works", which is promising but not terribly useful. The comments in the source dont qualify as documention. >> Perhaps "portable" within the OS was your goal, but in the mean time >> "portable" between very different OSs has been tainted. > >If you mean "FreeBSD should be Linux-driver-compatible", then your bus is >leaving and you should be warming a seat. No, it means that it the ability to port from one OS to another is a win for both camps and that it should be a consideration. >> One of the problems with "free software" is that the big picture is missed >> because the people writing OS's dont care (and for the most part dont >> understand) about vendors supporting multiple, very different, OS's. > >One of the problems these vendors face is that "free software" OS >developers are less interested in pursuing the lowest common denominator. Which is why linux is running away with the market, because its too difficult to support several free OSs so you just support the largest market. > >If you think that "memory mapped registers" are platform-portable, all I >can suggest is that you try playing with a few different platforms, and >preferably some time when you're prepared for a nasty shock. I said OS portable, not platform portable. The original purpose of Freebsd was to be an intel specific optimization of BSD. Clearly that is no longer the case. DB To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200005301601.MAA26766>