On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> >       parent* at wherever
> >       child0 at parent0
> >       child* at parent1
> 
> The last one isn't really acceptable, as instances of the parent device
> may suddenly be probed in another order, thus changing the identity of
> child0 and its siblings.

Then the user gets what they asked for, even if they don't like it.

> >       [blah blah]
> >       no usb
> > 
> >    will just silently act like
> > 
> >       pci* at mainbus?
> >       uhci* at pci?
> 
> This makes me think I might have been wrong since the beginning.
> Instances declarations don't have to be ordered, why should instances
> negations be?  Wouldn't it make sense to have 'no usb' first and still
> get the same result?

I think order-dependence for "no" declarations is more useful than
order-independence.  It allows this to do something useful:

	include "GENERIC"
	no wd
	no atabus
	atabus0 at pciide0
	wd0 at atabus0 drive 0
	wd1 at atabus0 drive 1

--apb (Alan Barrett)