In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can understand if you do not like to call your cbus hardware "ISA" > devices, but also consider that on most pc-at hardware there are no "ISA" > devices either. These are completely different. All PC-98 machines don't have "ISA" devices and buses at all, but a little old PC-AT machines have "ISA" buses. And, even if the PC-AT machine does not have "ISA" buses, it has "PCI-ISA" bridge. > Things like the floppy controller, keyboard controller, > counter/timer, rtc, etc etc are all on motherboard busses. Many are on > things like X-bus, v-link, or other custom "quick and dirty" host busses. FYI, NetBSD/pc98 has the "systm" virtual bus. > I would rather live with #ifdef PC98 than > to have a duplicate set of isa/* and i386/* files that are nearly identical > except for include file paths, #ifdef PC98 and s/isa/cbus/. I'm sure there > are other ways to improve the situation without having to resort to this > mass duplication of code. How? I have had some questions like "Does PC98 have ISA bus?" or "Why PC98 uses ISA driver?". To clear these questions and problems, I think that adding separated cbus driver is better way. --- TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
