Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 03:04:05PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: [...] >> >> >> There has been quite some discussion on "canonical path" on the list, >> >> >> but no consensus. Ironically, one of the places where we got stuck was >> >> >> ISA. You cut right through that, so that's progress. Maybe people >> >> >> aren't looking ;) >> >> > That is funny since the problem was already solved looong time ago. Just >> >> > look at Open Firmware device path. They are capable of addressing all >> >> > devices just fine, ISA devices included. What specific problem you had >> >> > with ISA bus? >> >> >> >> Lack of consensus. I was in favour of using I/O base, just like you do. >> >> There were worries about ISA devices not using any I/O ports. >> > There is a solution for that problem for almost 15 years and we are >> > still looking for consensus on qemu list?! Here is ISA device binding >> > spec for Open Firmware: http://playground.sun.com/1275/bindings/isa/isa0_4d.ps >> > If ISA device have no IO ports MMIO is used. >> >> Precedence should promote consensus, but it can't replace it. If you >> can push the list to consensus, more power to you. > I do not see disagreement right now :) You are saying you agree. Blue > Swirl asked me to use Open Firmware so I assume he agrees to. So who is > against and what are his arguments? Start here: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-06/msg01618.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
