On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jakub Jermar <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23.8.2012 16:28, Ján Veselý wrote: >>> We agreed with Jiri that there may be some situations when it may be >>> useful to know what kind of a hw resource the driver is passed (for >>> example to be able to tell the resources apart), but this is not the >>> case. The pio_* interfaces are there to unify the distinct notions of >>> I/O ports and memory mapped registers and especially the different >>> access mechanisms so that the drivers can be platform neutral and >>> portable. Reinforcing the differences in the drivers would be against >>> this principle and will also result in non-portable drivers. >> >> sry to step in this thread. >> Maybe we could rename those functions to io_* to make their >> universality clearer. >> It sure looks ugly accessing mmio resources using something called pio. > > Well, PIO does not stand for Port I/O, but for Programmed I/O, to make > it clear that we are not talking about DMA I/O.
My understanding was that programmed I/O meant using special instructions for i/o operations (unlike mmio or dma). It's not a big deal. I just wanted to point out that it might lead to confusion (it did in my case :), more so that in other places (like Linux kernel) pio term is used for x86 port access. Jan > > Jakub > > _______________________________________________ > HelenOS-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.modry.cz/cgi-bin/listinfo/helenos-devel _______________________________________________ HelenOS-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.modry.cz/cgi-bin/listinfo/helenos-devel
