Re: [discuss] Re: RFC: let x86_64 no longer define X86

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 07:37:33AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 07:12:46AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> >>Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't know details about the driver, but it's not enabled on x86-64 
> >>>because x86-64 doesn't have ISA set.
> >>
> >>
> >>which I disagree with.  CONFIG_ISA should include southbridge devices 
> >>behind a PCI<->ISA bridge.  There is zero value to a more stricter 
> >>"there is a physical ISA bus in this machine" definition.
> >
> >
> >There is. It gets rid of many tens of drivers that are not and will never
> >be 64bit clean and have a snowball in hell chances to work on x86-64.
> >
> >In theory you could invent a new ISA_SLOT or ISA_BROKEN config for them,
> >but since ISA does the job quite well for near everybody except
> >for one or two corner cases I don't see any sense in changing it.
> 
> The traditional legacy ISA devices -- floppy, serial, parallel, mouse, 
> keyboard, IDE -- are still around.  Yet now we need to invent a new name 
> to classify ISA devices that have been with us for 20 years?
> 
> CONFIG_ISA_BROKEN is more appropriate than pretending devices we've 
> called ISA since the 1980's do not imply/depend on CONFIG_ISA.

Silly question:
Why CONFIG_ISA_BROKEN?

A new CONFIG_ISA_SLOT might solve such cases, and otherwise the case 
Andi described would be perfectly covered by !CONFIG_64BIT .

> 	Jeff

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed