Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:31:45 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: nate@root.org Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [src] cvs commit: src/sys/dev/fdc fdc.c fdc_isa.c fdc_pccard.c fdcvar.h src/sys/modules/fdc Makefile Message-ID: <20040707.183145.79073073.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <40EC7A5A.3010303@root.org> References: <20040707223539.6114C16A5B4@hub.freebsd.org> <40EC7A5A.3010303@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <40EC7A5A.3010303@root.org>
Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes:
: Warner Losh wrote:
: > imp 2004-07-07 22:35:27 UTC
: >
: > FreeBSD src repository
: >
: > Modified files:
: > sys/dev/fdc fdc.c
: > sys/modules/fdc Makefile
: > Added files:
: > sys/dev/fdc fdc_isa.c fdc_pccard.c fdcvar.h
: > Log:
: > Break out the isa and pccard front ends from fdc. This is the first
: > step in making this driver more attachment neutral. Others plan on
: > adding acpi front ends.
: >
: > Still need to cleanup the MI part of the driver because it isn't as
: > bus independent as it could be.
: >
: > Revision Changes Path
: > 1.276 +12 -304 src/sys/dev/fdc/fdc.c
: > 1.1 +145 -0 src/sys/dev/fdc/fdc_isa.c (new)
: > 1.1 +114 -0 src/sys/dev/fdc/fdc_pccard.c (new)
: > 1.1 +134 -0 src/sys/dev/fdc/fdcvar.h (new)
: > 1.9 +2 -14 src/sys/modules/fdc/Makefile
:
: I don't think you should put your copyright on code that is 100% from
: fdc.c. Bruce complained about this for my version of fdcvar.h.
First of all, it isn't 100% from fdc.c. I rewrote some of it, and
grabbed parts of it. That's why I added the comments I did to go back
and look at the copyright in the files themselves. The original
copyright in the fdc is so long I wanted to make sure that I grabbed
only the portions of it that were relevant to the code that was there.
Looking at the code, it looks like it only made it into the fdcvar.h,
I had intended to add it to all of them.
Also, I do have a copyright on it. That's 100% legit. I did write
parts of this file. The thing that isn't legit is failing to include
the relevant parts of fdc.c's copyright. I noticed literally at the
last minute before committing that there was no copyright on the files
so I added mine with a note that said I should audit things. For
example, none of this code was in the original 1990 version of fdc.c
(except maybe the softc that was in fdcvar.h).
: Also, you went the path of completely exposing the softc (and the
: requisite enum fields). In response to Bruce's comments, I had made
: major efforts to hide it and have accessor functions for the probe
: routines. This is why I didn't commit the acpi attachment a month ago
: (and still haven't committed it). I'm a little frustrated that it
: appears I could have gone with the exposed softc approach and saved
: quite a few hours of work.
I went the route of 'exposing' the softc, because that's how newbus
works: it manages the softc, and in order to manage the softc you have
to expose its size. I treid to express that in the reviews, but I
guess that got lost in the shuffle. Bruce doesn't like it, but we do
it all over the place and the world hasn't come to the end. Anyway,
after the set of mail that was sent out, I thought that I was supposed
to commit the simple split, then you were going to specialize things
for acpi. That's why I went ahead and committed this. phk's recent
changes to fdc reminded me to merge this stuff....
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040707.183145.79073073.imp>