Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:08:35 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: phk@phk.freebsd.dk, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Improving bus/resource API Message-ID: <200509201608.36461.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20050920.130528.35014863.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <5975.1127215219@critter.freebsd.dk> <76404F68-547C-42E2-A3A9-BD0AF2ECFADF@nlsystems.com> <20050920.130528.35014863.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 20 September 2005 03:05 pm, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> 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.
I think maybe just do 's/bus_space_/bus_/' on the current names, which gives
the simple bus_read/bus_write for the common case. I think that along with
reducing the first two args down to one that should make things shorter
without making it cryptic. (I think bsrm_4() would be cryptic compared to
bus_read_multi_4().)
> : > 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).
Now now, it's just a proposal at this stage. :)
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200509201608.36461.jhb>