Re: asmc driver patch merge request

2017-02-15 Thread Adrian Chadd
this looks fine to me. what's with the whitespace changes? -a On 15 February 2017 at 19:27, Johannes Lundberg wrote: > Hi > > This patch adds support for MacBook Pro 11,2 to asmc. > > The other day I tried patching my old > >

asmc driver patch merge request

2017-02-15 Thread Johannes Lundberg
Hi This patch adds support for MacBook Pro 11,2 to asmc. The other day I tried patching my old https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214836 submission and discovered it did not apply at all anymore. I uploaded an updated patch that should apply cleanly to HEAD. Someone got time to

Re: basic evdev setup

2017-02-15 Thread Vladimir Kondratyev
Hi, Andriy I can add my 2 cents to Oleksander`s 1. If xf86-input-keyboard is not used as primary keyboard driver, patch [1] should be applied to xorg-server to prevent ttyv8<->xorg frame buffers interference 2. It`s also worth trying one of PR/196678 patches to xorg devd configuration

Re: basic evdev setup

2017-02-15 Thread Oleksandr Tymoshenko
Andriy Gapon (a...@freebsd.org) wrote: > > Oleksandr, > > at the moment the documentation for evdev on FreeBSD is very scarce, even if > we > talk about wiki pages, informal howto-s or blog posts. > So, I would like to ask your help for a very basic evdev test setup. > > All input devices I

Re: removing SVR4 binary compatibilty layer

2017-02-15 Thread Peter Jeremy
On 2017-Feb-14 10:32:32 -0800, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > After some discussion on svn mailing list [1], there is intention >to remove SVR4 binary compatibilty layer from FreeBSD head, meaning >that FreeBSD 12.0-RELEASE, available in couple of years would >be shipped without it.

basic evdev setup

2017-02-15 Thread Andriy Gapon
Oleksandr, at the moment the documentation for evdev on FreeBSD is very scarce, even if we talk about wiki pages, informal howto-s or blog posts. So, I would like to ask your help for a very basic evdev test setup. All input devices I have are standard keyboard and a mouse with some extra keys.

Re: removing SVR4 binary compatibilty layer

2017-02-15 Thread mokhi
Well, I'd like to offer help keeping it (because on a personal opinion, I'd like being compatible `:-D). But the reasons are pretty reasonable and convincing :-). I have no more objections against removing it when security risks involves. -- Best wishes, MMokhi.

Re: removing SVR4 binary compatibilty layer

2017-02-15 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <20170215081430.gc58...@freebsd.org>, Gleb Smirnoff writes: >Well, we all "maintain" it, meaning that we keep it compilable. However, >I'm sure that no one checks the functionality. There are no regression >tests, and seems to be no users. And probably nobody ever bothered to

Re: removing SVR4 binary compatibilty layer

2017-02-15 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:56:29AM +0330, mokhi wrote: m> Is this removing is because no-interest on maintaining it? m> m> If it helps, I am working to use the `kern_* instead sys_*` as m> mentioned patch in that discussion suggests for svr4, if this helps. Well, we all "maintain" it, meaning