svn commit: r197969 - head/sys/conf

[Marcel Moolenaar]

On Oct 13, 2009, at 9:04 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > Does this mean that the memory cycles on the I/O bus isn't  
> supported
> : > for these architectures?
> :
> : Correct.
>
> Then it isn't an ISA bus.

Of course it isn't an ISA bus. It's all LPC. Leaving the specialized
embedded market aside, there's no point discussing real ISA busses
in the FreeBSD context. Noone cares and as long as it doesn't break
anything noone is going to put in effort to fix the code.

> : There are no hooks to implement. If there is any FreeBSD supported
> : board that actually needs to have the option ROMs scanned by orm(4),
>
> FreeBSD does support boards that need to have option ROMs scanned.

orm(4) doesn't do anything with it. Other than claim the memory
region and indirectly enforce policy, there's nothing orm(4) does.
Policy should be implemented in the platform code where the knowledge
exists and it should not be done as a side-effect of a driver that
encodes the knowledge of a single platform by way of hardcoding numbers
that don't hold on other platforms.

orm(4) causes machine checks and kernel panics on PowerPC and Itanium
and none of the non-i386 hardware has any real history with ISA, so
the sensible thing is to have orm(4) be specific to PC hardware where
it has relevance. If orm(4) is actually *required* on non-PC hardware
then one only has to add the appropriate line to file.${ARCH} and it's
there.

-- 
Marcel Moolenaar
xcllnt at mac.com