Re: small note to GENERIC for isa dependency

Bruce M Simpson wrote:

>On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 06:03:27PM +0400, Roman Kurakin wrote:
>  
>
>>>The problem is that ISA and the i386 architecture are still intimately
>>>involved. It's probably hidden away as something called LPC on yours. :-)
>>>      
>>>
>>I only want to say that this is normal wish to remove device "isa" as a
>>"hardware missing in my modern box", cause I open it and see nothing
>>except PCI slots.
>>    
>>
>
>Appearances can be deceiving. I can understand the source of your confusion.
>Let me attempt to clarify.
>  
>
Sorry my words wasn't clear enough. I don't have any confusion (but any 
way thanks,
for details). But "generic" users described by me has. So all I said was 
mostly point of
view of such users.
I am working with pupils, they have even worse view in their minds :-). 
I am also working
as tech support and even some system administrators do not know how to 
ln -s and how
to build kernel. :-(
I must confess that I tried to remove isa device from config. Probably I 
expected that if I
don't have ISA bus in explicit form I don't need explicit device. That I 
can turn of some
part of code system needs for support of non-generic-isa devices. For 
example old style
compatibility wrapper (now we dont have such, but then it was).
(From human laziness I do not read sources, manuals and other things all 
the time. I know
that I can try and if I break something on my personal computer I alway 
know how to fix
it :-) I know that I was wrong in my conclusions.)

rik