Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:31:14 +0900 (JST) From: Takahashi Yoshihiro <nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org> To: peter@wemm.org Cc: imp@bsdimp.com, sos@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG, mdodd@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The cbus driver for pc98 Message-ID: <20030217.173114.85351300.nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20030217070601.78E612A89E@canning.wemm.org> References: <20030216.235014.111547234.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030217070601.78E612A89E@canning.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <20030217070601.78E612A89E@canning.wemm.org> Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> writes: > I can understand if you do not like to call your cbus hardware "ISA" > devices, but also consider that on most pc-at hardware there are no "ISA" > devices either. These are completely different. All PC-98 machines don't have "ISA" devices and buses at all, but a little old PC-AT machines have "ISA" buses. And, even if the PC-AT machine does not have "ISA" buses, it has "PCI-ISA" bridge. > Things like the floppy controller, keyboard controller, > counter/timer, rtc, etc etc are all on motherboard busses. Many are on > things like X-bus, v-link, or other custom "quick and dirty" host busses. FYI, NetBSD/pc98 has the "systm" virtual bus. > I would rather live with #ifdef PC98 than > to have a duplicate set of isa/* and i386/* files that are nearly identical > except for include file paths, #ifdef PC98 and s/isa/cbus/. I'm sure there > are other ways to improve the situation without having to resort to this > mass duplication of code. How? I have had some questions like "Does PC98 have ISA bus?" or "Why PC98 uses ISA driver?". To clear these questions and problems, I think that adding separated cbus driver is better way. --- TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro <nyan@FreeBSD.org> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030217.173114.85351300.nyan>