Re: pchb@acpi

[Matthias Drochner <M.Drochner%fz-juelich.de@localhost>]

bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost said:
> To me it's not clear if it's the way to go (and I guess we'd need a
> pci@pcibios as well ...

I think the pcibios gives so little value that it doesn't deserve
an extra attachment. ACPI is another league - it is essential
for interrupt routing and power management. Without it, you don't
get correct interrupt routing on MP systems (unless you resort
to MPIs...), and no system-wide power management on x86.

> It has been argued before that attachement
> at apci should go away

I think it is OK to attach the PCI buses which are defined by ACPI
at acpi. The attachment frontend can install hooks to get interrupt
routing right. This would also help wakeup support for eg USB
and ethernet devices.

> and use apci to drive the isa autoconf instead ...

My opinion on this is that we should get chips which are part
of the platform (timer/RTC/PICs/npx) out of the "isa" section,
so that one can use a modern PC without any isa bus configured.
ACPI's help might or might be useful for that -- at least it would
not be needed for a real ISA bus.

best regards
Matthias



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
52425 Juelich
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------