Re: Inconsistencies in usage of "locators" argument to config (*ca_rescan)() functions

[Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost>]

> On Mar 26, 2021, at 12:58 PM, Rhialto <rhialto%falu.nl@localhost> wrote:
> 
> On Wed 24 Mar 2021 at 13:37:53 -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> 
> [ explanation of direct and indirect configuration ]
> 
> Is there any reason why it's called direct and indirect? I can't really
> match those names to the procedures. Maybe some other names would be
> better, perhaps "config driven" and "hardware driven", or "fixed" vs
> "autodetect" or something like that?

I don't recall 100% ... I've been using that terminology myself for so long now that I almost feel like it's trying to describe the color blue ... "Blue... it's, um.... It's blue."  When all else fails, you just have to fall back on "approximately 400nm" :-)

I think it may have been the terminology used by Chris Torek in his paper on the new 4.4BSD device auto configuration framework (that was primarily used only on the 4.4BSD sparc port ... the 4.4BSD hp300 port still used the classical device configuration framework from 4.1BSD).  Sadly, that paper is somewhat hard to find, and I don't know if it was ever actually published anywhere.

-- thorpej