From owner-freebsd-mobile Mon Apr 12 3:22: 9 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from moss.nibb.ac.jp (moss.nibb.ac.jp [133.48.46.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B1D41534E for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 03:22:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tomoaki@biol.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by moss.nibb.ac.jp (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA12436; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:19:46 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from tomoaki@biol.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp) To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Cc: y-nakaga@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp, mike@smith.net.au, dcs@newsguy.com, nate@mt.sri.com, faber@ISI.EDU, nsayer@quack.kfu.com, dfr@nlsystems.com Cc: tomoaki@biol.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Subject: Re: Any success with CirrusLogic 6729/6730??? From: Tomoaki NISHIYAMA In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94b8 on Emacs 19.34 / Mule 2.3 (SUETSUMUHANA) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <19990412191944E.tomoaki@moss.nibb.ac.jp> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:19:44 +0900 X-Dispatcher: imput version 990212(IM106) Lines: 34 Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org From: Doug Rabson Subject: Re: Any success with CirrusLogic 6729/6730??? Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:00:45 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: dfr> > The reason why newconfig will put the information in a file dfr> > is to make the user-configuration easier. dfr> > The reason of new-bus to put the information in individual driver dfr> > is to make it easier to load the module dynamic. dfr> > Is this recognition right? I would like to hear from both sides. dfr> dfr> This is right. dfr> dfr> The reason device attachment points are not specified in the config file dfr> is that I don't think the user should need to care how the hardware in dfr> their machine works in order to get FreeBSD working. dfr> Hearing the discussion in Japanese, the files file in newconfig is not only used for user configuration, but is essential to guarantee the modularity of the drivers. We would have separate modules for bus interface and bus independent part of a device driver. This is important because a device may be connected to different device and thus there is bus dependent and independent codes. Bus independent code should be the same for different interfaces. Now my question is if new-bus architecture provides a framework to separate the bus interface and bus independent part of a device driver. -------- Tomoaki Nishiyama e-mail:tomoaki@biol.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Department of Biological Sciences, Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message