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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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? Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3115.797325872>