Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 05:34:32 -0600 (CST) From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@nomad.dataplex.net> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: Kenjiro Cho <kjc@csl.sony.co.jp>, NAKAGAWA Yoshihisa <y-nakaga@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PAO Integration? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9812150521010.7087-100000@nomad.dataplex.net> In-Reply-To: <199812132016.MAA00365@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, Mike Smith wrote:
> It's worth pointing out that we are now quite a long way down the path
> to this goal; by no means all the way there, but the new bus
> architecture coupled with KLD modules does largely obviate the need for
> config(8) in the first place.
>
> I'm of the strong opinion that our current direction, taking us away
> from static configuration, is the right one to be taking in the context
> of our current and projected future target architectures. It is no
> longer adequate nor desirable to require the kernel to be rebuilt to
> adapt to a new system configuration, and we need to reflect this in our
> architecture.
I support Mike's opinion on this matter. At the same time, I think that
the PAO folks recognize that there is a need to support the rogue devices
that cannot be handled in any fashion other than manual intervention
("Damn it! I know that this card uses IRQ .. and .... . Just do it that
way.")
Can we have a scheme whereby the "ultra-new-config" utility generates
glue modules for just those devices? By adding the resulting KLDs to the
load mix, the legacy hardware would be accomodated in the same framework
that the rest of the dynamic system uses.
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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9812150521010.7087-100000>