Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:11:40 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Takahashi Yoshihiro <nyan@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/uart uart.h uart_core.c uart_cpu.h uart_cpu_alpha.c uart_cpu_amd64.c uart_cpu_i386.c uart_cpu_ia64.c uart_cpu_pc98.c uart_cpu_sparc64.c uart_dev_sab82532.c uart_dev_z8530.c Message-ID: <20030923211140.GA653@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <200309230925.h8N9Pc36009932@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200309230925.h8N9Pc36009932@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 02:25:38AM -0700, Takahashi Yoshihiro wrote: > nyan 2003/09/23 02:25:38 PDT > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: > sys/dev/uart uart.h uart_core.c uart_cpu.h > uart_cpu_alpha.c uart_cpu_amd64.c > uart_cpu_i386.c uart_cpu_ia64.c > uart_cpu_pc98.c uart_cpu_sparc64.c > uart_dev_sab82532.c uart_dev_z8530.c > Log: > - Keep the base address in struct uart_bas for sab82532 and z8530 modules. > - Remove buggy uart_cpu_busaddr() function. I'm particularly unhappy with this change. The addition of iobase to struct uart_bas is very wrong. It's not needed prior to bus enumeration and thus is not part of the minimal information required to access the device. It strokes against newbusification in general. Secondly, the need to the I/O address is limited to some hardware drivers and only so that they know which channel they handle. We should therefore not pollute the otherwise hardware neutral infra- structure with fields that are not genericly useful. The hardware driver's probe method should obtain the I/O base address only to initialize a channel field in the hardware specific softc. Please revert this and related/following pollution in other files. I'm very much against this. I also ask, very politely, that you let me review changes to uart(4) for the time being. Even though I don't hold any locks or special maintainer authority, I do claim guru status based on the fact that I am the author and I do expect that people have the sensibility or otherwise the respect to pass large or impacting changes by me. Even if it's just for show. I also realize that my lack of pc98 knowledge has resulted in code that is based on assumptions that simply don't work on pc98, but my mistake should not be kludging around by whole new and other mistakes. Thanks for your cooperation, -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030923211140.GA653>