[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160408120338.GA18202@sophia>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:03:38 -0400
From: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, jic23@...nel.org,
knaack.h@....de, lars@...afoo.de, pmeerw@...erw.net, wim@...ana.be,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, gnurou@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] watchdog: ebc-c384_wdt: Utilize the ISA bus driver
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:35:35PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>I am a bit concerend that the newly introduced ISA_BUS is not automatically
>enabled. Effectively this means that all drivers depending on it will
>be disabled until someone enables ISA_BUS in the distribution.
>
>Is this a concern for anyone but me ?
>
>Anyway, since you are the driver maintainer, I assume that you are ok
>with it, so
>
>Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>
>Side note for Wim: ISA_BUS was introduced with commit b3c1be1b789c
>("base: isa: Remove X86_32 dependency") in -next.
>
>Guenter
Since the ISA bus lacks standardized probing functionality, and the
majority of ISA devices I've encountered expect the user to start
writing to the device's I/O port addresses from the get-go, I think
ISA_BUS should remain an explicit dependency rather than become selected
when a user chooses a driver. That is to say, it is more appropriate for
a user to explicitly enable ISA_BUS if their system has an ISA bus;
otherwise a user may enable a driver with the expectation of a device
probe, whereas the driver will simply start writing to I/O port
addresses unexpectedly.
William Breathitt Gray
Powered by blists - more mailing lists