Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:05:28 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: dfr@nlsystems.com Cc: phk@phk.freebsd.dk, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Improving bus/resource API Message-ID: <20050920.130528.35014863.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <76404F68-547C-42E2-A3A9-BD0AF2ECFADF@nlsystems.com> References: <5975.1127215219@critter.freebsd.dk> <200509201045.58685.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <76404F68-547C-42E2-A3A9-BD0AF2ECFADF@nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <76404F68-547C-42E2-A3A9-BD0AF2ECFADF@nlsystems.com> Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> writes: : > Maybe bus_read_{1,2,4}() rather than bsr_? (Same with s/bsw_/ : > bus_write_/). I : > do like having the accessors take just a resource rather than a : > tag, handle : > pair. Many drivers already hide this in wrapper macros already : > though. Are we going to extend this to all the other things that bus space can do? http://people.freebsd.org/~imp/bus_space.html While many of these are less common than the familiar bus_space_{read,write}, we should consider them as part of the updated API. bs vs bus_ vs ???. These are really bus space + resource macros. So maybe we want some other prefix... The whole point of the bsr vs bus_space_read was to make things much shorter. bus_read/write does that, but to a more limited extent. Still, saving 6 characters per function call, plus one argument will help a lot. : > For the dwiw (dwim? :-P) maybe since it takes an array, just make the : > 'resource' part plural, thus 'bus_alloc_resources()' and : > 'bus_release_resources()'? : : I like these names. That would settle the whole dwim vs dwiw arguement :-). I like it. Oh, I found another bug: There are no man pages. This is the only fatal problem. There's still no man page, for example, for the d_*_t functions, nor the cdevsw in general (other than really crunch ones). Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050920.130528.35014863.imp>