From owner-freebsd-new-bus Mon Feb 11 6: 6:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-new-bus@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3897B37B405 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 06:06:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #6) id 16aH65-000DWh-00 for freebsd-new-bus@freebsd.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:06:21 +0000 Received: (from jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) id g1BE6KK25275 for freebsd-new-bus@freebsd.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:06:20 GMT (envelope-from jcm) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:41:43 +0000 From: j mckitrick To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-newbus@freebsd.org Subject: Adding newbus abstraction to parallel port devices Message-ID: <20020211134143.A24762@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-new-bus@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi all, last time I looked, the parallel port chipset driver (isa/ppc) uses microsequences to handle the hardware control/data ports for the parallel port. For anyone who is unfamiliar with these, they are macros built from I/O port bitmasks to handle the necessary hardware control to run the parallel port. The committer that wrote the parallel port driver said he used microsequences because the driver was designed/implemented before newbus. Since the purpose of the microsequences was (a) hardware abstraction and (b) to increase speed, how could this be re-written to use newbus instead without a performance loss? jm -- My other computer is your windows box. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-new-bus" in the body of the message