Re: RFC: cleaning up j720ssp.c
Peter Postma <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.ports.hpcarm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:39:11AM +0100, Quentin Garnier wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 11:28:21PM +0100, Peter Postma wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 01:49:52AM +0100, Quentin Garnier wrote: > > > > I had to make a small change to hpcapm.c, removing the include > > machine/autoconf.h. I don't think that will affect the other hpc ports > > but I'll cross-compile them to be sure. > > I think it's a left over; it probably was needed for struct > mainbus_attach_args, which of course is not used anymore. > > > And there's a minor compatibility problem... the apmdev device uses > > a different major number from the apm device, so users will need to > > create a new device node. I've created a new major file > > Hum, no. Just use the same major as before. > Uh, ok. > > (hpcarm/conf/majors.hpcarm) for this (arm/conf/majors.arm32 didn't feel > > right). A new apm binary is also required to query the status. > > I'd rather have a MI definition for hpcapm. But we'll still need a > definition for compat_30 anyway. > Ok, but then I don't see how you want to keep compatibility, we still need to change the no. for the MI definition. > Why would a new binary be required? AFAICT, the ABI doesn't change. > There's a small difference in the APM_IOC_GETPOWER ioctl: the old apm uses "_IOR" and the new uses "_IOWR". > > So maybe this should be noted in src/UPDATING and/or -current-users. > > I don't think we have a compatibility problem. I'll have to think more > about it though. > There might only be a ABI compatibility problem, but we'll have to live with that... -- Peter Postma