Re: [RFC] I/O Access Abstractions

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk said:
>  The question I think being ignored here is. Why not leave things as
> is.

Because if we just pass in this one extra piece of information which is
normally already available in the driver, we can avoid a whole lot of ugly
cruft in the out-of-line functions by plugging in the correct out-of-line 
function to match the resource. 

> The multiple bus stuff is a port specific detail hidden behind
> readb() and friends. 

The alternative view is that the _single_ bus stuff is a port-specific
detail which has permeated all the drivers and forced the non-i386
architectures' I/O functions to have to try to work out which bus they're
talking to when the driver could have just passed that information to them.

--
dwmw2