From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 25 14:02:08 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 4C06216A4C1; Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C5016A4D5 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail10.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.210]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2348443FB1 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:02:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 3498 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2003 21:02:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )encrypted SMTP for ; 25 Aug 2003 21:02:05 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7PL239s020951; Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:02:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20030822.154941.31253895.imp@bsdimp.com> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:02:30 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: "M. Warner Losh" cc: perforce@freebsd.org cc: marcel@xcllnt.net Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 36551 for review X-BeenThere: p4-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: p4 projects tree changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:02:08 -0000 On 22-Aug-2003 M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20030822173606.GA849@dhcp42.pn.xcllnt.net> > Marcel Moolenaar 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. ACPI isn't a bus like c-bus though. ACPI enumerates ISA devices. A closer analogy would be to create a pnpbios0 bus for ISA devices enumerated by the PNP BIOS. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/