Messages in this thread | | | From | David Woodhouse <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] I/O Access Abstractions | Date | Mon, 02 Jul 2001 17:41:36 +0100 |
| |
alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk said: > The question I think being ignored here is. Why not leave things as > is.
Because if we just pass in this one extra piece of information which is normally already available in the driver, we can avoid a whole lot of ugly cruft in the out-of-line functions by plugging in the correct out-of-line function to match the resource.
> The multiple bus stuff is a port specific detail hidden behind > readb() and friends.
The alternative view is that the _single_ bus stuff is a port-specific detail which has permeated all the drivers and forced the non-i386 architectures' I/O functions to have to try to work out which bus they're talking to when the driver could have just passed that information to them.
-- dwmw2
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |