From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 23 03:24:56 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id DAA20838 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 03:24:56 -0700 Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id DAA20832 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 03:24:54 -0700 Received: (from julian@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id DAA26650 for hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 03:24:53 -0700 From: Julian Elischer Message-Id: <199504231024.DAA26650@ref.tfs.com> Subject: [EISA] related matters To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 03:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 979 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk The present scheme of allocating devices to one of a number of spl levels and configuring them by those queues is in my opinion, broken.. How are PCI and EISA devices supposed to fit in with this if my EISA devices have different spls, should I add them to the queues used by the isa code, or should I some how beat up the priority masks for each device? it would seem to me that the whole situation would be simpler if we could simply let each device set a spl elvel individually, and only have a single list of devices (one for ISA). The problem is that for PCI and EISA busses, the devices are found in the order they appear on the bus rather than the order they appear on some internal list. This breaks the way that the isa probing code works and makes it very difficult to fit in with it.. other OS's (e.g. mach) manage to allow the masks for each device be individually specified in any order.. does anyone see why we shouldn't use their code for the job? julian