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