Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 4 Dec 1996 21:36:40 -0500 (EST) | From | Dan Merillat <> | Subject | Re: PNP patch into kernel when? |
| |
On 4 Dec 1996, Jes Degn Soerensen wrote:
> Date: 04 Dec 1996 13:40:55 +0100 > From: Jes Degn Soerensen <jds@kom.auc.dk> > To: "Andrew E. Mileski" <aem@ott.hookup.net> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@pc5829.hil.siemens.at>, > linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu > Subject: Re: PNP patch into kernel when? > > > >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew E Mileski <aem@nic.ott.hookup.net> writes: > > Andrew> I expect the changes I propose the the PnP patch to will be > Andrew> inconsequential to programmers in short order. Heck, they > Andrew> might even grow to prefer them :-) > > Before we (noticeable Linus) add yet another interface for device > allocation/registration to the kernel, I think we should try to look > at the needs for all the various architectures and try to specify a > common interface that is similar for all (bus)architectures. How does > the new PnP interface compare to the existing Zorro, SBUS and PCI > config interfaces? > > I see no reason to have N fundamentally different interfaces for this > if we can have one common interface. This will also be usefull if/when
Um... If you havn't checked out the PnP patches, you should. The whole point of his work is to make a SINGLE consolidated resource management format. You request_hw_resource() and give it flags of what type of resource, and what range. It is far superior to the current method (which is what you just complained about... a different interface for each kind of resource, and many different resource allocations between different archetecures.)
Plug and Play is a really BAD name for it... it's better described as the Linux resource management project. PnP is just one part of it.
ObTechnicalquestion: has anyone played with the semantics of supporting memory holes? And how to get that information from bios?
I checked the patchlist and didn't see anything of the type.
--Dan
|  |