Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:49:41 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: marcel@xcllnt.net Cc: jhb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 36551 for review Message-ID: <20030822.154941.31253895.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20030822173606.GA849@dhcp42.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030821173225.GA780@dhcp42.pn.xcllnt.net> <XFMail.20030822125402.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030822173606.GA849@dhcp42.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20030822173606.GA849@dhcp42.pn.xcllnt.net>
Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> writes:
: > > So, please. Do not blur the distinction by having it all mapped as
: > > ISA devices. I really don't want to have to shoot you :-)
: >
: > Well, the other alternative is to add an ACPI attachment for every
: > ISA device. I'm sure you can appreciate my lack of zeal for this
: > option. :(
:
: Moving forward I would think that you replace ISA bus attachments
: with ACPI bus attachments until such time you don't have any ISA
: drivers anymore. That is, you probably need drivers for ISA devices
: that exist on alpha, so you'll end up with a handful of drivers
: that have both ACPI and ISA. Hmmm, I don't know if this holds for
: pc98 or not?
Assumption: bus attachement are cheap.
There will be a number of drivers that violate this, and may need to
be rearranged, but forcing a device onto the ISA bus because we don't
have a ACPI attachment for it is lame.
The pc98 folks have expressed a strong desire that CBUS front ends be
separate from ISA front ends. There's a number of technical reasons
for this, in addition to the asthetic argument. Basically, they've
shoe-horned cbus into ISA bus, and it is a poor fit. Let's learn from
that lesson.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030822.154941.31253895.imp>