Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:03:50 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 36551 for review Message-ID: <20030825220350.GA20047@ns1.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030825170230.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20030822.154941.31253895.imp@bsdimp.com> <XFMail.20030825170230.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:02:30PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > > 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. > > ACPI isn't a bus like c-bus though. ACPI enumerates ISA devices. I think this is too much of a PC PoV. ACPI is designed to bridge the gap between legacy machines and legacy-free machines, but it is not a thingy to enumerate ISA devices. Processors, APICs and the likes are all present in the ACPI namespace and definitely are not ISA devices. I like to think that ACPI allows enumeration of devices that are not attached to a bus and in that way serves as a bus itself. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030825220350.GA20047>