Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:55:53 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: New kernel/resource.c |
| |
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Jonathan Walther wrote: > > Linus, can you remind us again why you found it makes more sense to say > "PCI" instead of the more generic "bus"? They are both equally easy to > type, and one clearly fits all cases. The other is a popular, but not > really generic.
Because "bus" is arguably _too_ generic.
Imagine a machine with sbus and PCI. You'd like the PCI device drivers to work without any problems, and they shouldn't be bothered by a sbus peripheral that happens to have the same (independent) sbus address.
Note that I don't think this is too strong an argument. I'm definitely not too hooked up about the "pci" name. "ioport" and "iomem" works fine for me too if people really hate the implication that pci is the "standard" bus when it comes to PC's.
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |