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

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

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