[Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND] <ding> "Bring out your dead" <ding>...
paul.gortmaker at windriver.com
Tue Jun 26 22:17:28 UTC 2012
On 12-06-26 05:58 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 19:55 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> Linus mentioned that perhaps someday we might be able to remove EISA as
>>> well. It seems to make sense to me too, given that EISA (at least in
>>> x86) was largely confined to 486 and 586 (sub-200MHz) server machines,
>>> and largely all crushed out of existence by PCI around 1996. But some
>>> non-x86 boxes may rely on EISA -- such as some Alpha boxes, I think.
>> Sounds reasonable to me, but only if the arch maintainers for
>> mips, alpha and parisc are ok with this.
> Personally, the oldest PA system I have is a B180 which is SBA (HP
> specific bus) and PCI based. However, I do see periodic bug reports
> from systems with EISA busses ... but I don't remember seeing any actual
> EISA bugs.
>> Those are actually more likely to still in the hands of someone who
>> cares about them than the x86 PCs are. Removing EISA support might
>> imply killing a few platforms altogether.
> Well, but why? EISA support seems to be nicely separated and the bus is
> discoverable so it's not like you have to poke at random locations to do
> discovery (unlike ISA); what actual problems is it causing? I know I
> build it for PARISC even if I can't use it, so it certainly compiles.
I know you asked the same question about MCA -- i.e. "what actual
problems is it causing". And the answer here is the same answer
I gave there. Carrying largely unused stuff is not free. Go back
to the top post in this thread where I detail what I believe to
be some of those costs, and if you'd like to debate points in there,
then great. I'm not going to repeat them a second time here though.
> Ksummit-2012-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-2012-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
More information about the Ksummit-2012-discuss