In article <20001207170949.952672A39@orchard.arlington.ma.us> you write:
>> This sounds reasonable to me.  Note that I would probably avoid the
>> pci_attach_args_t thing, and just continue to call it "struct pci_attach_args".
>
>"mixed coding style considered annoying".
>
>[if we want to encourage use of both "struct foo" and "bar_t" types
>within a single API, we need to write down the rationale for when to
>use one vs. the other].

I think a reasonable one (which may or may not apply here) is that struct
foo is transparent (i.e. drivers manipulating one are expected to meddle
with its innards) and bar_t is opaque (only certain code (probably MD) is
meant to look inside it).  Also, bar_ts are usually things which can change
internal structure on different architectures, while structs usually stay
the same.

-- 
Ben Harris                                                   <bjh21@netbsd.org>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm26/>