bjh21@netbsd.org (Ben Harris) writes:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > > I think that depends on how you define "bus".  The upc driver is for a
> > > single chip of the usual PC super-IO variety, and calling it a bus seems
> > > over the top.  Do we really want a separate subdirectory for every
> > > multi-function chip that might be attached to more than one bus?  
> [...]
> > Ok, I see. I notice "puc" at pci also has com/lpt children
> > and the files are in sys/dev/pci.
> 
> That was what I was basing my layout on.  I'm not entirely sure it's
> right.

for what puc does, it's as close to 'right' as you can get.


> > How about sys/dev/ic/upc/ ?
> 
> That sounds good to me.  The alternative is to follow the mhzc device
> (sys/dev/pcmcia/mhzc.c), which puts them all in one file and uses #ifs to
> work out which devices to include.  I'm a bit dubious about that, though,
> since it means the driver has to be recompiled every time you change the
> set of children it uses, which it'd be nice to avoid.

This, however, is bogus.


I disagree with the notion of a directory for every single chip of the
PC super-io variety, or even this one unless there's some overriding
reason -- i'm coming into this thread late, and this was the first
message I saw about it.

If it's a PC super-io chip, what's wrong with just attaching an 'ISA'
to it?  that's what some ports do, unless i'm mistaken.  Failing that,
what we need is a slightly-tweaked direct-config version of ISA which
can be used by all such chips.

It's _not_ right to start dumping them each into their own directory,
though.


cgd