Nate Williams wrote: > > "Matthew N. Dodd" wrote: > > > On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > Might be a good time have a sys/dev/sio and have pccard, cardbus, pci > > > > and isa attachments there. Yes, I did say cardbus, since I have seen > > > > cardbus PCI modems that are NOT winmodems. > > > > > > And MCA and EISA attachments. > > > > Well, it seems Bruce objects to this.. I don't know why though. If he's > > concerned about loosing the tightly integrated sio<->isa stuff then I guess > > there could be an "osio" (old sio) or "isasio" or something driver that > > remains isa-specific. I could well imagine this could be important for > > older/slower machines.
[full quote restored for bde's benefit, he may not be reading this thread about adding support for this in -hackers] > My guess is that he's worried that we'll end up with lots of additional > 'indirection' through the system, thus slowing down the ability to > service interrupts in a quick manner. If that's what he's worried about then I wish he'd say so. Nothing that we want to do requires breaking this. > Also, don't fast interrupts depend on the ISA bus? Fast interrupts are > a requirement for *any* machine to run at a reasonable speed, old/slow > or new/fast, it doesn't make any difference. Yes.. Which is part of the reason for moving the interrupt *setup* to bus-specific code. The handler would be the same regardless and there wouldn't need to be any indirections or performance impairments as a result. One of the things I was going to fix was the hack where com_addr() is using device_get_softc(). This is not fast interrupt safe and needs to go back to something along the lines of what it was before. The end result would be that there would be *less* new-bus code in the core sio.c as it'd be moved aside. > Nate Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to [email protected] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
