From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: To: "J.E.J. Bottomley" Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , Greg KH , Miles Bader , Matthew Wilcox , "Adam J. Richter" , andmike@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mochel@osdl.org, parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Untested port of parisc_device to generic device interface In-Reply-To: Message from "J.E.J. Bottomley" of "Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:44:17 EST." <200211132044.gADKiHi02548@localhost.localdomain> References: <200211132044.gADKiHi02548@localhost.localdomain> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:42:15 -0700 From: Grant Grundler Message-Id: <20021113214215.AD0494829@dsl2.external.hp.com> Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: "J.E.J. Bottomley" wrote: > However, I think the ultimate destination is to see how much of the bus > specific stuff we can abstract by throwing an API around it. I think IRQ, > port and mmio are feasible. Specific knowledge of bus posting et al may not > be. I was thinking how many BARs are present/used is PCI specific. arch code already handles most of the IRQ fixups anyway and it doesn't really matter where IRQ info is stored as long as the device driver knows where to find it. > > Duck! (that's going to get fixed it seems) ;^) > > I thought the 53c700 was working OK? sorry - "going to get fixed" meant we are looking for a C180 or similar machine to send you. thanks! grant