From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
 > >It's not obvious to me how you mean this statement, but a naive
 > >interpretation leads to something like:
 > >
 > >cbb at whatever
 > >pcic at cbb
 > 
 > Nope.  What's meant is more like:
 > 
 >    cbb at whatever:  cardbus, pcmcia
 >    pcic at whatever: pcmcia
 > 
 > with child pcmcia devices attaching via pcmcia?, and cardbus devices
 > attaching via cardbus?.

That's it.

 > Hayakawa-san's point is to avoid duplcating the cis-tuple and pcmcia
 > functionality almost verbatim, once for pcic bridges and once for
 > cardbus bridges.  IF that means we need to add callback methods via
 > the parent bridge to access ExCA(?) or whatever registers, fine.  If a

That's what I mean.  Thanx.

I also suppose an abstraction layer of the physical PCMCIA
slot is needed: that's `cardslot' in my patch, though it has
been partially written.  This layer should provide `the
template of' interrupt handling methods, bus-space handling
methods and ioctls.
-- 
HAYAKAWA, Koichi