On Tue, 7 May 2002, der Mouse wrote:

> Yes, it should.  But since when has this become dogma strong enough to
> justify overriding a port's portmaster, and thereby presumably breaking
> that port until someone figures out how to fix the MI stuff, and does
> it?  And, then, why aren't you also backing out, say, all graphics-head
> console support for ports that don't use wscons?  Or any of the other
> various cases where a port doesn't yet use the MI version of something?

I think it's more a question of where we are and where we're going. For
pci support and for wscons, we are in different positions. For pci, we
have a working system used by (almost) all ports. For wscons, we have some
ports using it, and some using pre-wscons systems.

The problem here is that we have a port moving away from the MI pci bus
system to a port-specific one. I think this is bad as: 1) we should be
able to make the MI code support what sparc64 needs and if we do this,
we're less-likely to, and 2) I bet other ports will be able to bennefit
from this in the future (some maybe even now :-) .

Take care,

Bill