>> You are right. Thanks for your patience. I cast my vote for
>> "pcbus" instead of "pci". Love the resource concept.
> "pcbus" would certainly fit my requirement for being specific
> enough, and it's probably non-specific enough that others
> wouldn't jump up and down too much.
> However, at the same time it doesn't actually "say" much to me
> either. "ioport_resource" is fairly descriptive: the thing it
> guards are actually commonly called "IO ports". Compared to that
> "pcbus_io_resource" is too bland, and while it's logical it
> doesn't tell people who are used to the terminology exactly
> what's up.
> So I've already set my heart on "ioport". I don't know about
> "iomem", though: nobody calls memory-mapped accesses "IO memory"
> accesses. "PCI memory" actually describes at least to me exactly
> what it's all about, which is why I liked "pci_mem_resource".
> "pcbus_mem" lacks that mental image for me.
> Oh, well. It's just a name. Or two, actually.
Why not just use "io_resource" and "mem_resource" respectively?
Best wishes from Riley.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux |
| development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, |
| in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone |
| else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
* ftp://ftp.MemAlpha.cx/pub/rhw/Linux
* http://www.MemAlpha.cx/kernel.versions.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/