Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:18:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:18:15 -0500 Received: from khan.acc.umu.se ([130.239.18.139]:61914 "EHLO khan.acc.umu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:18:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 23:17:23 +0100 From: David Weinehall To: Lionel Bouton Cc: Alan Cox , BALBIR SINGH , esr@thyrsus.com, David Woodhouse , Dave Jones , Linux Kernel List Subject: Re: ISA slot detection on PCI systems? Message-ID: <20020103231723.Z5235@khan.acc.umu.se> In-Reply-To: <3C34D0D9.6010008@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <3C34D0D9.6010008@free.fr>; from Lionel.Bouton@free.fr on Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:44:57PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:44:57PM +0100, Lionel Bouton wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > > >>This would break things like cross-compilation. Not sure how many people > >>use it though. You will have to be on the machine for which you intend > >>to compile the kernel. If you are compiling the kernel for the same machine > >>then it is the best thing to happen, provided the software doing the > >>configuration for u is not broken > >> > > > > I'm really not too worried about Grandma cross compiling kernels > > > ROTFL at the mental image of my Grandma configuring a cross-compiling > environment. > > Eric, you said somewhere else in this thread that eventually we should > be able to make kernel configuration as easy as MAC configuration. > > In short we can't. > > MAC configuration is a dream we can't touch. The core hardware and most > importantly the mainboard firmware is done by the very same company that > develops the OS. I guess they didn't shout themselves in the feet and > made firmware and hardware with clean enough interfaces that they could > make hardware detection trivial. > Even if they did mistakes, had bugs, they have the exhaustive list of > them and most probably can easily use workarounds. > > Contrast this with the PC world : numerous mainboard manufacturers, bios > developpers, extension card manufacturers, Operating Systems, each with > their own bugs others desesperately try to work around... > > The general case where all works ok (no bugs in dmi, pnp, ...) is the > exception and the land here is full of workarounds and dead ends if you > want to do hardware detection. > > The worst case : the plain old ISA bus where you can't try to detect a > specific extansion card without risking to lock the system hard by > screwing some other type that is listening on ports you probed. > > What I think we should try is to identify the most stable interfaces > (lspci works ok for most systems and would be of great help), use them > and let the user fill the gap (ISA/MCA/VLB/AGP bus switches for the > *user* is a great idea indeed). > > We are quite PC centric here. But other archs are certainly far more > friendly to what you're up to. At least MCA and NuBus can be autodetected, and I'm fairly confident the people behind the VME-bus and TurboChannel weren't stupid either, so those can probably be autodetected and probed too. Dunno about VLB, but AGP is sort of a special-case of PCI (if I'm not all wrong) and can be autodtected too. ISA, on the other hand, is always a gamble. I bet there are other exceptions as well. /David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall /> Northern lights wander \\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/