Subject: Re: "esp" driver reorg proposal
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Gordon W. Ross <email@example.com>
Date: 01/26/1997 00:13:32
> From: "Chris G. Demetriou" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 21:47:14 -0500
> Actually, on the alpha, i'd call it 'asc'... 8-)
In the version I uploaded, the MD code can call it whatever it wants.
> > I do _not_ like the notion of <machine/espvar.h>, or whatever. [...]
[ I've already responded to this. -gwr ]
> It's not just a matter of this...
> If every driver using MI code starts requiring a header in <machine>,
> things quickly get out of hand...
True, you need one for each port, but almost all of the traditional
xxxvar.h stuff would be in the common <dev/ic/xxxvar.h> file.
To make this more clear, I've attached a copy of the file I would
propose as <arch/sparc/include/espvar.h> below. (Only 58 lines!)
> > The functionality that is provided by the current macros in the header
> > files could be provided by function pointers.
They could, yes, but that is not the ONLY way, and I've yet to see
any explanation as to why it SHOULD be the only way permitted.
> > I'd also like to see softc layering a'la the MI 5380 driver. (That
> > even allows ports to arbitrarily rename it :-)
Arbitrary naming is there now.