On Jun 16, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:

> I'm trying to understand what you mean by this comment;  
> particularly in
> the context of this discussion.  Specifically, are you saying its a  
> bad
> idea to initialize a softc that isn't really a softc (as Tsutsui-san
> suggests), or that it is a bad idea to use some pseudo-softc structure
> (ala struct com_regs) like I've done?

The former.  It is bad practice, IMO, to create a softc that isn't  
really a softc.

> Personally, I find the idea of initializing a softc structure with a
> bunch of stuff in it that won't be used (and maybe isn't initialized)
> ugly -- and possibly error prone.  (Some assumes they are dealing  
> with a
> normal softc and prints sc_dev.dv_xname, for instance.  Is that
> initialized to a sane value?  Who knows?)

I agree.  It will get even uglier come the say when softc structures  
do not directly contain a "struct device".

> I think my approach is still pretty sane.

I haven't looked at the diffs yet, but in general I agree.

-- thorpej