cvs commit: src/sys/i386/include dvcfg.h physio_proc.h src/sys/amd64/include dvcfg.h physio_proc.h src/sys/compat/netbsd dvcfg.h physio_proc.h src/sys/dev/ct bshw_machdep.c ct.c ct_isa.c src/sys/d

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20040316125222.G96418 at root.org>
            Nate Lawson <nate at root.org> writes:
: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <20040316.224458.21308983.non at ever.sanda.gr.jp>
: >             non at ever.sanda.gr.jp writes:
: > : From: Takahashi Yoshihiro <nyan at jp.FreeBSD.org>
: > : Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:14:53 +0900 (JST)
: > : > In article <200403150741.38591.peter at wemm.org>
: > : > Peter Wemm <peter at wemm.org> writes:
: > : > > I don't really care where they go, as long as it isn't in the MD include
: > : > > areas (they are not MD!), and not in sys/.  My favorites right now are
: > : > > dev/pc98/* or compat/pc98/*.  I would also like sys/device_port.h to
: > : > > move there too since it is used by the same group of ct/ncv/nsp/stg
: > : > > drivers.
: > : >
: > : > I repeat that they have NO relations with pc98.  So, the above
: > : > proposals are not acceptable.
: > :
: > : I agree with nyan-san. They are not specific to pc98 not for
: > : compatibility. I think they should be in sys/ or dev/dev/* or
: > : somewhere MI and not in compat/* .
: >
: > dev/pc98 isn't right.  I have pcmcia cards that are supported by the
: > ncv, nsp and stg drivers running on an i386 box.  dev/sys is fine by
: > me too if you are looking for a name.
: 
: Blech, did you see the suggestion for /src/sys/dev/ic/ ?

Yes.  I saw that since I made it.

I like dev/include, but maybe a more fundamental question is that
these are a portability layer shared between a number of differen
systems, does that layer have a name?

Warner