* William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:26:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >What's the practical motivation of this? What exact hardware is this for? > > > >Thanks, > > > > Ingo > > The PC/104 bus is equivalent to the ISA bus regarding software > communication. Many small form factor systems have a PC/104 bus where > PC/104 cards may be stacked. Nowadays, these systems are commonly > running 64-bit processors such as the Intel Atom. > > I would like to utilize the ISA bus driver to support these PC/104 > devices (see http://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/7/418), but the ISA > configuration option has an arbitrary X86_32 dependency. Decoupling the > X86_32 dependency from the ISA configuration option will allow these > PC/104 drivers to build for 64-bit architectures. > > The existing kernel drivers which I intend to utilize the ISA bus driver > in a X86_64 architecture for PC/104 support are the ACCES 104-DIO-48E > GPIO driver, the ACCES 104-IDI-48 GPIO driver, the ACCES 104-IDIO-16 > GPIO driver, and the Apex Embedded Systems STX104 DAC driver. I have > several more PC/104 devices for which I wish to write drivers, but I > would like to resolve this ISA bus driver situation before submitting > new code. Ah, ok, so it's for enabling real hardware, not just a cleanup, right? You might want to put that info into the boilerplate mail or so. I'm perfectly fine with all the patches that touch x86 code: Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> I suppose you'd like to have these in the driver tree, all in one place? Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
