Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:50:41 -0400 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Niclas Zeising <zeising@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Bus space routines Message-ID: <51C0AC01.8070007@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAOfDtXNWMO-D1D9UAcvG_nhv4uqMQmrpEvsPd-PAEB1-FdoXtA@mail.gmail.com> References: <51C0345E.4000309@freebsd.org> <CAOfDtXNWMO-D1D9UAcvG_nhv4uqMQmrpEvsPd-PAEB1-FdoXtA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2013-06-18 06:56:15 -0400, Robert Millan wrote: > I think the BSD world did the right thing by introducing new > semantics. Plus they're also more portable (on the hardware > sense), have a look, e.g.: ... > So why not just use those? It seems very natural to me that if you > have something which is unambigous and reliable, you use this > instead of something else which is prone to nasty errors. bus_space(9!) is KPI and it must not be used on userland. Actually, it only works on X86 by pure luck, e.g., bus_space_tag_t is an integral type, it has very simple instructions to directly access I/O space, etc. Please use GNU libc for Debian until we implement proper API. Jung-uk Kim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRwKwAAAoJECXpabHZMqHOs+kH/RGnfuVQK4VkVOuI2HalxV38 /ntERblLlhJjWUdBbNT/ARarSdU9tF1/h9wVGlXEFNWzVUG+Pd3X28VOYrpdNFw6 gQspxQiwO9XDv9iPaZDEjI6wKMS5G6RLzYzpKT0y1xdvtpVcqpJ+VR62nUU9fewW uP78be+1WcqKLuWOIuYsTNGx9isdmrOd2yiA7zinNNjrfAievwxeu+AokAuWWO7q 623v0ePg8e0/lBranAQ3PecK1Mj8JnQa9iySxOiWh7I2HfZbOa6b5eu+suXSPX4L 9ygCzOSaXbp98ASQiKbHUII5/CQyK7JkVhR4upem+H9ZvXFRPHX5ZDXmKYueNE4= =gKtu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51C0AC01.8070007>