[lkml]   [1999]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: New resources - pls, explain :-(

On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Martin Mares wrote:
> > I'm saying the _helper_ function should do the dirty work, and I'm saying
> > that the bootup sequence should _not_ necessarily do it.
> I still don't see any advantages in such an approach -- in my opinion
> it just adds extra complexity to both the drivers and the generic code,
> bringing nothing useful.

I want to have a common driver interface, at least conceptually.

And while you don't seem to believe it, there are buses where you CANNOT
initialize the device generically. It happens with PCI too, with devices
with extended registers etc, but on other buses it is sometimes the _only_
way to do things.

So I want drivers to be conceptually

for_each_device() {
io = enable_device(); /* or whatever is approapriate */

.. run with it ..

because that is the kind of "common" ground for all different bus types.

I'm talking to the ISA PnP guy, and we'll try to get rid of "struct
pci_dev" completely - because most of the issues with PCI have similar
equivalents in ISA PnP. So there would be a "struct device" (except the
name has already been stolen by the networking layer, so..), which can ge
used in generic PC drivers, and then the only difference between PCI and
ISA PnP is going to be which function you use to find the device, and
which function you use to initialize it.

In short, this is not about just PCI. There are certainly many cases where
the same driver has PCI, ISA PnP, and old ISA interfaces - and the
_driver_ is often exactly the same with just small differences in how
cards are found and initialized.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.052 / U:5.404 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site