From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Finn Thain Subject: Re: What ISA hardware is integrated into m68k bridges Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:35:21 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: References: <20120520163105.GC21177@windriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from vm4.telegraphics.com.au ([98.124.60.149]:40058 "EHLO vps4.telegraphics.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754700Ab2EUBf2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2012 21:35:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120520163105.GC21177@windriver.com> Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Gortmaker Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox > [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/160144/ > That thread makes it pretty clear that you don't like the presence of a certain NIC driver, because you don't like limited hardware, and because you personally have no need of neither. But, nowhere in that thread is there any reason given for piecemeal ISA removal: Alan asked "So, should we dump ISA?" after suggesting "Removing [the NIC driver] because nobody is running one even in a museum might be a good reason". So, I wonder, how will you ascertain that there are no users of this code you've targetted? Finn