Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 15:19:22 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: NAKAGAWA Yoshihisa <y-nakaga@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Nathan Dorfman <nathan@rtfm.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PAO Integration? Message-ID: <199812132319.PAA00332@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 13 Dec 1998 12:03:31 %2B0900." <199812130303.MAA09027@chandra.eatell.msr.prug.or.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Not at all. Please join new-bus-arch. > > OK, I will join new-bus ML. But I disagree "now -current style bus > code". -current bus code is very different other BSDs, it is large > demerit. And, I NEED "new" config for staticaly configuration. I think this illustrates the major points of difference between the "newconfig" folks and the "new bus" folks. Let me explain my reasons for supporting the "new bus" movement; these may help explain why we think it's worth the effort. - We aren't CopycatBSD; the "new bus" group is attempting to develop a new, better approach to handling the bus/bridge/device relationships. "newconfig" is better than what we have right now, but it is not good enough. - Bus architecture "incompatibility" is not actually a significant issue. We are already 100% bus architecture incompatible with the other BSDs, change simply for compatibility's sake won't give us any benefits, and it would stifle any attempt to do better. Right now the few drivers that are shared amongst the BSD's all have different bus interface code anyway; there is nothing that will get "worse" if we change the mechanics of the interface. There are also things that we are trying to do that can't be done with newconfig (at least, as it is right now - for sure it too can be modified). - Static configuration is evil. More specifically, static configuration is a special case of dynamic configuration. "newconfig" does static configuration very well, but the "newconfig" architecture is not at all suitable for dynamic configuration. > In now, -current bus code lack of many feature, NetBSD-current bus > code has it. So, we use NetBSD style bus and device configuration > code. We already re-write PCI and part of ISA code, it works fine. I don't think this is good enough. We don't want to be playing catch-up to an architecture that was well-designed for systems where configuration is largely static; we need something that will allow us to grow and adapt to the future directions that systems architecture in our target market is taking. I don't mean to say "newconfig is bad", so much as to say "new bus is better again". -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812132319.PAA00332>