On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 03:15:05PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> parport_open() returns a device (struct pardevice *), and close
> takes that as parameter, but other read and write take a port
> (struct parport *). Wouldn't it make more sense that it took a
> device as parameter, after all you want to talk to a device.
Yes, but it's too late now. :-(
Implementation wise, it makes a little bit more sense to give those
functions the port, since they have to use the port hardware to do
their job (and it means that the caller can cache the port info in a
register). But it's really only a small thing, and it would make more
sense from the point of view of the driver writer to use the
pardevice.
Tim.
*/
-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: linux-parport-request@torque.net --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 09:48:44 EDT