> 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