-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: 69030 driver
Date: Thursday 11 Sep 2003 4:21 pm
From: Rishabh Kumar Goel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i m trying to write a MDA driver for CT's 69030 chip. The PCI card is memory
mapped. starting from 0x080 with the memory size
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, John Dennis wrote:
JD alignment requirement right how do we specify the alignment requirement
JD to the compiler in a portable way such that it will build on a variety
JD of systems and compilers?
Juliusz typedef union {int i[1024]; long long l;} jmp_buf;
Yes, I thought of
On Mer, 2003-09-10 at 23:21, Michel Dnzer wrote:
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 19:00, Jim Gettys wrote:
Here's Alan Cox's mail about it. In 2.4.20-ac1.
Won't this conflict with the DRM vblank interrupt handling? (I've also
seen framebuffer device patches for this...)
Thats a matter for the X
An audio server need not be designed to add latency (beyond
that of the network itself, of course). With current networks,
this is very small, down to a few samples.
Existence proof is the AF audio server we did 10 years ago,
in which the server design itself did not enforce any latency: if
data
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 20:11, David Dawes wrote:
John wrapper. So as long as we've already lost module
John independence by virtue of linking the system function why
John not go all the way and use the system definition of the
John system function's argument? It seems like
Hi!
Thanks for your suggestion. I tried that but nothing worked out.
i am working on NetBSD. So i mapped the memory from 0xA to 0xB. From
this memory mapped I tried to read a single byte from the device and also the
word but of no use. I get only 0xFF.
My first aim is to get the Green
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 11:18:44AM -0400, John Dennis wrote:
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 20:11, David Dawes wrote:
John wrapper. So as long as we've already lost module
John independence by virtue of linking the system function why
John not go all the way and use the system definition of
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 14:35, David Dawes wrote:
What's the difference between this in the core executable:
xf86A(pointer data)
{
return A(data);
}
SYMFUNC(xf86A)
and this:
SYMFUNCALIAS(xf86A, A)
The difference is that xf86A may massage data in some system specific
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 05:24:40PM -0400, John Dennis wrote:
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 14:35, David Dawes wrote:
What's the difference between this in the core executable:
xf86A(pointer data)
{
return A(data);
}
SYMFUNC(xf86A)
and this:
SYMFUNCALIAS(xf86A, A)
The
