From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 23 12:10:15 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id MAA04770 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 12:10:15 -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 MAA04764 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 12:10:14 -0700 Received: (from phk@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id MAA27694; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 12:10:13 -0700 From: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-Id: <199504231910.MAA27694@ref.tfs.com> Subject: Re: [EISA] related matters To: julian@ref.tfs.com (Julian Elischer) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 12:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199504231024.DAA26650@ref.tfs.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Apr 23, 95 03:24:53 am Content-Type: text Content-Length: 671 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.. > > 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). It has always had me wondering why >I< had to tell config about spl-levels... What we really should have is a TEXT_SET(device_probe...) and kill config... -- Poul-Henning Kamp -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' => 'no rude people are relevant'