From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] Drop ISA dependencies from IRDA drivers Date: 15 Jul 2004 22:50:01 +0200 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040715205001.GA2527@muc.de> References: <40F6B547.7050800@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, irda-users@lists.sourceforge.net, jt@hpl.hp.com, the_nihilant@autistici.org, Linux Kernel Return-path: Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:50:01 +0200 To: Jeff Garzik Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40F6B547.7050800@pobox.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:48:07PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > >http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3077 > > > >Some IRDA chipsets currently don't work on x86-64, because > >they're dependent on CONFIG_ISA and x86-64 doesn't set this. > >CONFIG_ISA means real ISA slots, and I doubt these chips > >come on real ISA cards, so I just removed the bogus > >dependency. > > Honestly, the issue and patch need more thought, IMO. > > Regardless of theory, CONFIG_ISA is currently also used to indicate > legacy ISA devices that are today integrated into southbridges. I don't think so. I did most of the original CONFIG_ISA annotations and I only added it to real ISA devices. And the LPC devices in southbridges are normally not marked CONFIG_ISA. > > And with legacy ISA devices still around, I don't see a whole lot of > value in differentiating between "I have ISA slots" and "I have ISA > devices". There is great value. Basically most ISA drivers are not 64bit clean (if they even still work on i386 which is also often doubtful in 2.6) and it is a great way for 64bit archs to get rid of a lot of not working code. -Andi