Date: Sat, 08 Apr 1995 00:24:32 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: ache@astral.msk.su, freebsd-current@freefall.cdrom.com, rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Subject: Re: Strange kernel printf... Message-ID: <3115.797325872@freefall.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Apr 95 21:05:16 %2B1000." <199504061105.VAA18008@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> Although repeating the device lines is a hack, its syntax is simpler and > exactly matches the data structures that should be built, at least in > ioconf.c (you wouldn't want variable length arrays or linked lists). Hmmmmm. Mumble. OK. > I don't like this. Conflicts need to be resolved at runtime. The > static conflict checking code in isa.c should go away and be replaced > by calls such as > > register_iobase(iobase, iosize, id, flags); > > There should be flags for exclusive access and for preventing exclusive > access by other drivers. OK, that sounds more reasonable - I was just looking for a relatively quick fix with my other proposal.. :) So, my original question remains: Is this something we're going to actually do, or are we prepared to live with config in all of its fetid glory for the forseeable future? Jordanhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3115.797325872>