> We still need AN interface, perhaps not this specific one. If we are going
> to change the driver interface (and that's what is happening), we should do
> it all at once instead of dribbling the changes in over time.
Yep. After 2.4. Doing it now isnt feasible. Im not arguing against doing it
in the longer term.
> > PCI 2.0 doesn't make ISA bus masters illegal. In fact its irrelevant because
> > your ISA bus interfaces don't even have to overlay your PCI space. Thats just
> > a cheap PC compatibility hack.
>
> Find a post-486 PC that doesn't implement ISA as a PCI-ISA bus bridge, with
> a sideband IRQ mapping hack. It's not the DMA request lines that are the
> problem, it's a length of time and semantics of an ISA bus master holding
> the bus that's the problem.
As I said PCI 2.0 doesn't make ISA bus masters illegal. That is precisely
what you claimed. I don't know any PC that does it right, but this is the PC
for you.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
