From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep 20 19:06:45 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E928316A41F;
	Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:06:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (vc4-2-0-87.dsl.netrack.net [199.45.160.85])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F44D43D49;
	Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:06:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1] (may be forged))
	by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j8KJ590F040685;
	Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:05:10 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:05:28 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20050920.130528.35014863.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: dfr@nlsystems.com
From: "M. Warner Losh" <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>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0
	(harmony.bsdimp.com [127.0.0.1]);
	Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:05:11 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: phk@phk.freebsd.dk, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Improving bus/resource API
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:06:46 -0000

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