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

linux-os
2004-11-19T12:58:54Z

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, 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.
>
> Jeff
>

Why CONFIG_ISA_BROKEN. That implies (states) that its broken and
it's not. All modern ix86's have such a bus, even though it
doesn't go out to some connectors anymore. Just leave the 20-year-old
local bus, then called ISA, alone. ISA means:

Industry Standard Architecture

It __is__! Don't muck with it.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.9 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by John Ashcroft.
98.36% of all statistics are fiction.