From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 11 5:41:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E5637B405; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 05:41:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #7) id 16aGiG-000EYL-00; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:41:44 +0000 Received: (from jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) id g1BDfhC25143; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:41:43 GMT (envelope-from jcm) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:41:43 +0000 From: j mckitrick To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-newbus@freebsd.org Subject: Adding newbus abstraction to parallel port devices Message-ID: <20020211134143.A24762@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i X-Scanner: exiscan *16aGiG-000EYL-00*7hDJCWdrKSI* (Manchester Computing, University of Manchester) 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 Hi all, last time I looked, the parallel port chipset driver (isa/ppc) uses microsequences to handle the hardware control/data ports for the parallel port. For anyone who is unfamiliar with these, they are macros built from I/O port bitmasks to handle the necessary hardware control to run the parallel port. The committer that wrote the parallel port driver said he used microsequences because the driver was designed/implemented before newbus. Since the purpose of the microsequences was (a) hardware abstraction and (b) to increase speed, how could this be re-written to use newbus instead without a performance loss? jm -- My other computer is your windows box. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message