nathanw@MIT.EDU said:
> The device namespace is supposed to be the same as the isapnp
>   namespace. Would it make sense to use the device names/descriptions
>   from isapnpdevs?

This would make some sense. There would be some waste of memory
because there are PnP BIOS devices which never show up as ISAPnP
and vice versa, but this wouldn't be too much.
What I don't like about the way isapnpdevs is implemented is that
there is a somewhat arbitrary distinction between device IDs
and compatible IDs. An ID is an ID and has its meaning whether
the hardware vendor has chosen it as primary or compatible ID.
There could be more code shared, but the isapnp code would need
some restructuring first.

> This is clearly good information for finding out what resources to
>   avoid for dynamic device configuration.

Yes - this is where the development should go.
The problem is that the bus space accounting as done now is
a bit too narrow for this - an ISA device must be able to
take over an address range allocated by pnpbios.

best regards
Matthias