On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
> > We still need AN interface, perhaps not this specific one. If we are going
> > to change the driver interface (and that's what is happening), we should do
> > it all at once instead of dribbling the changes in over time.
>
> Yep. After 2.4. Doing it now isnt feasible. Im not arguing against doing it
> in the longer term.
It's just that a lot of changes were made to the driver interface, which
should involve significant functional re-testing (although I don't see that
happening). The obvious clean-ups, which should require only superficial
testing, are not happening.
> > > PCI 2.0 doesn't make ISA bus masters illegal...
> > Find a post-486 PC that doesn't implement ISA as a PCI-ISA bus bridge..
> As I said PCI 2.0 doesn't make ISA bus masters illegal. That is precisely
> what you claimed. I don't know any PC that does it right, but this is the PC
> for you.
Yes, it's theoretically possible to implement an ISA bus as peer bus to the
memory controller. But no current PC chipset does it that way, and non-PCs
(Alphas) use PC chipsets for their ISA bridges. So 99-100% of PCI-v2.0 + ISA
implementation will not work correctly with ISA bus masters. (Alan is
making a "pigs *can* fly, we just haven't developed working prosthetic
wings" argument.)
Donald Becker
Scyld Computing Corporation, and
USRA-CESDIS, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
