Simon Burge wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 08:51:44PM -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>   
>> Simon Burge wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:49:26PM -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Good.  What I will do is go ahead and commit *that* change seperately,
>>>> and then commit the PCI code which depends on it after I have changed
>>>> it. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Any objections (Simon?)  Speak up now, please!
>>>>         
>>> My first broad comment on the PCI-specific parts was the name of the
>>> device (aupb) - I would have preferred aupci, or at a stretch aupcib
>>> to keep in line with the current naming conventions.  There was a stub
>>> entry already in the aubus attachment code for aupci.
>>>   
>>>       
>> I think I forgot to respond to this one earlier.  Sorry 'bout that.  I
>> actually prefer the name aupci myself, but I decided to use aupb in a
>> (perhaps foolish) attempt to follow the standards set by other ports. 
>> There were two choices to follow: XXpb (where "pb" presumably means "pci
>> bridge"), or some name that doesn't reflect PCI at all (e.g. galileo or
>> bonito), and then a "device node" (not sure about NetBSD terminology
>> here) that is "pci".  (E.g. a lot of platforms have a "pci" device that
>> is not backed by a "pci.c" file, and which is totally different from
>> platform to platform.)
>>
>> I'm more than happy to change aupb to aupci if that is preferable. 
>> After all, its just a name, and "pci" is more descriptive.  I would like
>> to avoid having to rename all the internal symbols for now, if possible,
>> but that's just because I'm lazy and there are a bunch of them.  (I
>> don't trust a global search/replace not to bodge something else.)
>>
>> Anyway, let me know which you want, and whether it is a blocker for
>> commit, and I'll do whatever.
>>     
>
> It seems that the split between foopb and foopci, and even foopcib,
> is all over the shop.  I still prefer aupci myself.  Just changing
> the filename and the CFATTACH_DECL name (and obviously the kernel
> config file bits) is enough for now I think.  We can easily rename
> the internal functions later on.
>   
OK.  FWIW, I've seen the following "suffixes":

pb: - pci bridge
pcib: - pci-isa bridge
pccb: pci cardbus bridge
pcpb: pci-pci-bridge

The pcib bit is most confusing, because its really ISA logic, but it
*looks* like it is a PCI bridge.  Oh well...
> I'll get back to you with some other comments on the non-PCI parts of
> that patch (the CPU support split up, etc) soon.
>   

Thanks.

    -- Garrett
> Simon.
> --
> Simon Burge                                   <simonb@wasabisystems.com>
> NetBSD Development, Support and Service:   http://www.wasabisystems.com/
>   


-- 
Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer
Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division,
General Dynamics C4 Systems
http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/
Phone: 951 325-2134  Fax: 951 325-2191