On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 10:28 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > /For you/ it's certainly no big deal, you dont have to fix it up and you > > dont have to keep it flexible ;) > > > > How flexible does it need to be? Its a simple time source and event > driver. How flexible does the pit driver need to be? It's just a small > leaf node hanging off a large existing piece of kernel infrastructure. > > > and really, i'm not expecting miracles, i've never seen any hardware > > vendor argue /against/ support for their own hardware =B-) > > > > And since when has it been kernel policy to argue against including a > well written, self-contained, vendor-provided driver for a piece of > hardware? The difference is that we have not much influence on the design decisions of silicon vendors. We usually see them when the shit already has been morphed into solid silicon. Software emulated silicon _IS_ actually under our control. And we want to have it as sane as possible. tglx _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
