Improving bus/resource API
M. Warner Losh
imp at bsdimp.com
Tue Sep 20 12:06:46 PDT 2005
In message: <76404F68-547C-42E2-A3A9-BD0AF2ECFADF at nlsystems.com>
Doug Rabson <dfr at 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
More information about the freebsd-arch
mailing list