Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:44:25 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: EISA in GENERIC Message-ID: <8E01A77C-D7DE-4298-AA19-DCECF400812D@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20140415214042.GA73405@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <957D23B4-264C-4AAB-945C-F82B9877FAC9@bsdimp.com> <20140415214042.GA73405@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 15, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Steve Kargl = <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:50:14PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >>=20 >> The time has come to trim EISA from the generic i386 kernel. >>=20 >> Please see http://people.freebsd.org/~imp/patch-queue/eisa for >> the proposed change. It introduces a MK_EISA too so one can >> control building the eisa-only modules as well as the eisa = attachments >> in modules. >>=20 >> There are those that say it is time to vote EISA off the island. = Perhaps, >> but that?s a completely different discussion than the one I?m wanting >> to have now. The normal way that should be done is to remove it in 12 >> after disabling it in 11. >>=20 >=20 > No problem with intent of patch. >=20 > Do you need to make any changes for bt(4)? My first foray into > EISA used at Buslogic BT-742A. 'man bt' does not show a dependence > on 'device eisa', but bt(4) certainly supported EISA cards. This is handled in the config system. When =91device eisa=92 is omitted, = the eisa attachment for bt is omitted. There=92s no bt or buslogic module, = so no change is needed to cope there. At this late date, it is doubtful if = a bt/buslogic module would be useful to create=85 Thanks for the review... Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8E01A77C-D7DE-4298-AA19-DCECF400812D>