Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 16:30:18 +0900 From: NAKAGAWA Yoshihisa <y-nakaga@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>, Nick Sayer <nsayer@quack.kfu.com>, freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Any success with CirrusLogic 6729/6730??? Message-ID: <199904110730.QAA07786@chandra.eatell.msr.prug.or.jp> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Apr 1999 15:38:05 MST." <199904092238.PAA00883@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> No. The PCCARD bus is not an ISA device, nor is it an ISA bus. But I > was referring to the pcic device itself, which is also not an ISA > device. This message is opinions of PAO and newconfig people (me too): --- An ISA PCIC is undoubtedly an ISA device from the hardware's point of view. It has an ISA bus interface, and is connected to an ISA bus side of a PCI<->ISA bus bridge (south bridge). Why do you call it as "not an ISA device" ? As we repeatedly said, We are going to treat a PCI PCIC as a PCI device, and an ISA PCIC as an ISA device. This has several merits as below: - This is a natural abstraction which matches hardware connection topology. - We can apply UserConfig to an ISA PCIC. (PAO can use it.) - FreeBSD's current pcic code doesn't work with the machines which has both an ISA PCIC and a PCI PCIC. The notebooks which has this problem are populer in Japan. In our method, this problem goes away. Why do you ignore the hardware connection topology, and stick to "an PCIC is NOT an ISA device" ? What is the reason ? -- NAKAGAWA, Yoshihisa y-nakaga@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp nakagawa@jp.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904110730.QAA07786>