Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 12:30:01 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ocpbus(4) Message-ID: <200801021230.01517.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CC4D41C0-7CD7-47A8-8DA0-523B38C65B9A@mac.com> References: <B56F8F3C-7872-47B9-8154-1C08F5BEEA3D@juniper.net> <200712311606.25424.jhb@freebsd.org> <CC4D41C0-7CD7-47A8-8DA0-523B38C65B9A@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 01 January 2008 03:09:50 pm Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > On Dec 31, 2007, at 1:06 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > > >> Using the hints-way of describing hardware is just not going to > >> fly in that case, because you're still keying off of device names > >> and unit numbers. Let that be a consequence of the metadata, not > >> an integral part of... (device.COM1.* does exactly that). > > > > Redo the 'at' hints like this (pci was already this way in the > > existing hint > > wiring stuff anyway, i.e. it's _not_ a new-bus device name in > > 'at'). I'll > > use all-caps to make it stand out: > > While I think that's a good thing, the confusion to the user > when it comes to the unit number is already present. People > already assume that if they have hint.sio.0.at="isa" that > they expect to see device sio0. I fear that it's exactly the > same with "device.COM1.at=ISA. If the 1 on COM1 is just a > means to distinguish multiple COM devices, then it's much > better to use a more structural approach, eliminate the unit > and instead key-off of something that's truly identifying. It's a string. Look at your PC, on the back it has a label with "COM1" or "COMA" or some such. You can call it 'device.IHATECOMPUTERS' if you want. The idea is to just give a collection of properties a name so that they can all be bound together. > In other words: hints historically mix the hardware description > with the assignment of the driver and the unit number. Your > proposal has the same flaws. The whole thing is just awkward > for the user and impossible to implement unambiguously. COM1 is not a new-bus name. Nowhere in any of the device.FOO is a single new-bus name execept for the possible 'driver=foo' property to bind to a driver. That all said, I obviously am unable to come up with anything acceptable to your tastes so I'll just give up and work on something else. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200801021230.01517.jhb>