Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 3 Dec 1996 19:20:44 +0100 (MET) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: PNP patch into kernel when? |
| |
On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, Philip Blundell wrote:
> I'm not sure either that the new name _will_ save any thinking time (is > "interrupt" really any less obvious than "irq"?) [..]
ok, but you were complaining about request_region().
the PNP patch renames request_region because it introduces new concepts of hardware-resource management. All request_ functions are piped to a central 'request_hw_region()' function, with the appropriate flag. The 'IO-region' is just a special flag. If we use the PNP patch, it would be very misleading to have 'request_region'. Why should 'request_region' be special?
[dont misunderstand me: wether these new concepts are correct is not up to me]
I will be asked by my grandchildren in quite some years, and i can only answer 'in those old 2.1 days when the PNP patch came into the kernel, there we had an old function called request_region()'. And they will think 'hey what an old idiot', and they will be right :)
-- Ingo 'huh, hope this wasnt a flame :)' Molnar
|  |