From owner-freebsd-current Mon Apr 12 15:36:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from pluto.plutotech.com (mail.plutotech.com [206.168.67.137]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7754515681; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:36:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gibbs@plutotech.com) Received: from narnia.plutotech.com (narnia.plutotech.com [206.168.67.130]) by pluto.plutotech.com (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA49323; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:33:31 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from gibbs@plutotech.com) Message-Id: <199904122233.QAA49323@pluto.plutotech.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Warner Losh Cc: Peter Wemm , current@FreeBSD.org, committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: About that 'new-bus' stuff. In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:40:27 MDT." <199904121940.NAA02397@harmony.village.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:24:04 -0600 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >In message <19990412175644.7DE5F1F4F@spinner.netplex.com.au> Peter Wemm writes >: >: to being able to use their drivers with less hassles. (There will be >: enough fun due to differences in bus_space and bus_dma, but that's >: another issue) > >I know that many people would like to see bus_space and bus_dma >reimported from NetBSD. As far as I know, there is no compelling >reason to have them be different. For bus_space, no. For bus_dma, there are some reasons for them to be different in one area: the callback mechanism for returning a valid dma mapping. The rest of the differences are primarily from the fact that NetBSD has enhanced or modified their interfaces since my original work and I haven't found the time to sync us back up. >Warner -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message