On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 22:22:45 +0100 
 Guenther Grau <Guenther.Grau@bk.bosch.de> wrote:

 > o easier sharing drivers between FreeBSD and NetBSD
 > o same APIs in FreeBSD/NetBSD
 > o convergence of code between FreeBSD/NetBSD
 > 
 > FreeBSD/NetBSD shouldn't be trying to be just different. Instead we
 > should
 > try to work hand in hand, as much as possible.
 > 
 > And to some other mails concerning this topic:
 > Please don't bring up any arguments about who opposed the integration
 > of CAM when and why. This won't help. Things happened in the past the
 > way they happened. I found a nice quote on a web site which explains
 > best what we should do, IMHO:
 > 
 > Solve problems rather than assign blame.

I agree, and there ARE a lot of problems with the CAM code.  The one
that jumps to mind immediately is its autoconfiguration model.  There is
a lot of machinery in Justin's CAM code to handle e.g. cloning devices,
which our autoconfiguration already supports in a generic way.

There is also the issue of having a separate "passthru" node for devices
on the bus.  What is the rationale for this?  Let's say I'm an application
writer, and I want to send arbitrary commands to "cd0".  I have to hunt
to find the passthru node (which may be "pass42") to correspond to my
device.  Seems unnecessary.

...there's one, anyhow.

Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center                            Home: +1 408 866 1912
NAS: M/S 258-5                                       Work: +1 650 604 0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035                             Pager: +1 650 940 5942