After all, whose opinion is reasonable?

1) Do we need to change the name of 'pchb' or not?
2) Do we need to skip probing a PCI end of 'pchb' or not?

Shigeyuki Fukushima wrote:
> Yes. I think that we should reconsider the follow points:
> 
> 1. we need to make an arrangement for a pchb driver.
>    ibm4xx/pci/pchb.c + ibm4xx/pci/pci_machdep.c + ibm4xx/dev/ibm405gp.c
>     -> ibm4xx/dev/pchb.c
> 
> 2. we need to tell pchb.c driver some configurations
>    (#defines with IBM405GP_ in *.c) by another way.
> 
> 3. we need to reconsider about machine dependent pci function.
>    What (pci_) functions shoud be in evbppc/<mach>/*.c?
>    pci_intr_map() and pci_conf_interrupt() had been already moved.
> 
> 4. Is some global variables related bus_space_* ugly? or reasonable?
>    Should they be in pci_chipset_tag_t (struct ibm4xx_pci_chipset) ?
>    If need, define pchb_softc included pci_chipset_tag_t ?

We should reconsider a pci driver for ibm4xx.
Do you have some objections?

Or... is the above off the point?

-- 
Kind Regards,
--- shige
Shigeyuki Fukushima <shige@{FreeBSD,jp.FreeBSD,NetBSD}.org>