PERFORCE change 36551 for review

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20030822173606.GA849 at dhcp42.pn.xcllnt.net>
            Marcel Moolenaar <marcel at xcllnt.net> writes:
: > > So, please. Do not blur the distinction by having it all mapped as
: > > ISA devices. I really don't want to have to shoot you :-)
: > 
: > Well, the other alternative is to add an ACPI attachment for every
: > ISA device.  I'm sure you can appreciate my lack of zeal for this
: > option. :(
: 
: Moving forward I would think that you replace ISA bus attachments
: with ACPI bus attachments until such time you don't have any ISA
: drivers anymore. That is, you probably need drivers for ISA devices
: that exist on alpha, so you'll end up with a handful of drivers
: that have both ACPI and ISA. Hmmm, I don't know if this holds for
: pc98 or not?

Assumption: bus attachement are cheap.

There will be a number of drivers that violate this, and may need to
be rearranged, but forcing a device onto the ISA bus because we don't
have a ACPI attachment for it is lame.

The pc98 folks have expressed a strong desire that CBUS front ends be
separate from ISA front ends.  There's a number of technical reasons
for this, in addition to the asthetic argument.  Basically, they've
shoe-horned cbus into ISA bus, and it is a poor fit.  Let's learn from
that lesson.

Warner