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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.