> This brings up yet another point.  Where should a driver which supports
> more than one bus (pci, isa, and eisa) go?  It doesn't fit anywhere
> really.

My answer to this is "dev/ic," but it should include no bus-specific
code.  bus-specific adapter drivers should be in the appropriate
directory, and should be differently named.

But that's only my answer to the question, and is different than
current practice for several drivers (which, as you may guess, i would
say is wrong).


> Perhaps the divided bus idea was a bad one, or the divisions
> were bad?

There are other ways the directory split could be done, but they have
drawbacks at least as large as the current way.

the way many OSes have done it is split drivers by type, completely
independent of bus, e.g. have "dev/ifnet", "dev/tty", etc., subdirs.
However, then you get into the problem that every driver must support
all of the possible busses it can live on, in the same source.  then,
if you have a common "files" file, some MI file needs to know about
all busses that the mi devices can live on, etc...

Compared to that, "dev/ic" and "dev/<bus>" seems ... very attractive.



chris