Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:59:33 +0200 From: Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org> To: Niclas Zeising <zeising@freebsd.org>, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bus space routines Message-ID: <CAOfDtXP=nM8jEgMWyqnAdyipL7ZcYBpXyuPiuKQ7CuAx5WFBpg@mail.gmail.com> 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
2013/6/18 Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org>: > static __inline void > bus_space_write_1(bus_space_tag_t tag, bus_space_handle_t bsh, > bus_size_t offset, u_int8_t value) > { > > if (tag == X86_BUS_SPACE_IO) > outb(bsh + offset, value); > else > *(volatile u_int8_t *)(bsh + offset) = value; > } > > 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. (Yes, I'm aware that GNU systems in general don't have this, and that using bus_space_* would introduce a portability nuissance, but IMHO this is much better than encouraging them to use the non-portable <sys/io.h> from Glibc right away. At least this forces them to think about what they're doing) -- Robert Millan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOfDtXP=nM8jEgMWyqnAdyipL7ZcYBpXyuPiuKQ7CuAx5WFBpg>