Good that you brought up the MIDAS VME API again, since this is still not complete, but
has to be completed soon.

Let me summarize the goals:

- have a single set of functions which can be used with all VME CPUs/Interfaces at our
institutes. Using this technique, one can change the interface or CPU and still keep
the same frontend source code. This was already successfully done with the MIDAS CAMAC
standard (as defined in mcstd.h)

- base any ADC/TDC driver we write on that API, so these modules can be used with any
CPU/Interface without changing the driver

- have a simple and easy to understand set of functions

- "cover" any specialities from the drivers, like memory mapping. 

Especially this point is very delicate. If one explicitely uses memory mapping in the
API, one cannot use interfaces which do not support this (like the Struck SIS3100). So
one should only use explicity vme_read/vme_write functions. Now people might argue that
going for each single access through a function is an overhead as compared to a memory
mapped operation. This might be true (even with inline functions of modern C
compilers), but it should be small on fast computers. Typically a single VME operation
take ~1us, while a function call takes much less.

Regarding the API implementation, I see now three "philosophies":

1) Handle oriented. One obtains a handle for each VME crate for each addressing mode,
then uses this handle for subsequent operation. This is the way the proposal from K.O.
is written.

2) Parameter oriented. There is no handle visible to the user code. All parameters are
passed in each call, like

mvme_read(crate, address_mode, vme_amod, source_addr, destination_addr, num_bytes);

3) ioctl() based. Same as 2), but the parameters like the address mode only get changed
via ioctl() when needed, like

vme_ioctl(request, parameter)   such as
 
   vme_ioctl(SET_CRATE, 1);
   vme_ioctl(MVME_AMOD, A24);
   mvme_read(source_addr, destination_addr, num_bytes);

This is how the current mvmestd.h is defined and how the
midas\drivers\bus\sis3100\sis3100.c is implemented.

Now the question is: should we implement 1), 2) or 3) ?

I had already lots of discussions with Pierre, and he convinced me that the ioctl() way
is not very nice. The advantage is that there is only one function to change
everything, so the complete API would be only 5 functions (init, exit, read, write,
ioctl), but of course there are many parameters to the ioctl() function. 

On the other hand I do not like the option 1). If you have five crates on a single PC
(and that's what we will have in our MEG experiment), you need 5x3 handles. If you use
many nested subroutines in your event readout, you have to pass lots of handles around.
I do not like option 2) as well, beacause each VME call contains many parmeters, which
make it hard to read.

So I would propose the following: We implement something like 3), but with explicit
routines:

  mvme_set_crate()   each funciton has a _get_ partner, like mvme_get_crate()
  mvme_set_address_mode()
  mvme_set_amod()
  mvme_set_blocktransfer()
  mvme_set_fifomode()             // speciality of the SIS3100 interface, write a
                                  // block of data to the same address
  ...

  mvme_read(vme_address, dest_addr, num_bytes);
  mvme_write(src_addr, vme_address, num_bytes);

It might look unfamiliar to have to set the address mode explicitely, but in practice
one typically has a few configuration calls in A16 mode, then the data readout in A32
mode. So omitting the address mode in the vme_read/write calls saves typing effort.

Since one does not use explicit handles, they have to stored internally in the driver.
I did this in the sis3100.c, and found that this overhead is negligible. The
implementation if of course not thread save, but does anybody use threads in the
experiment? I guess not.

Now I would like to hear anybody's comments. If we agree on this method, we have to
define a complete set of functions mvme_set_xxx. If we get a new interface in the
future which has new functionality (like 2eVME block transfers), we have to change the
API each time (while with the ioctl() we only would have to add one parameter). Or
maybe we can make a more generic mvme_set_vme_mode(mode), where mode could be fifomode,
2eVME mode, chained block transfer mode and so on.

Now there might be experiments which require the last bit of performance at the
frontend. They can decide to use the MIDAS API with some performance overhead, or they
can call directly the native driver API, but then be locked to the API. So everybody
has to decide himself.

I meet with Pierre end of September, and would like to finalize the API at that time.
So please give it a thought and let me know.

Best regards,

  Stefan