Loss of Functionality with newpnp

2000-11-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
The new PnP code just plain does not work for my PnP AWE64. If I configure like this: controller pnp0 controller snd0 device sb0 device sbxvi0 device sbmidi0 device awe0 device opl0 device joy0 Which is the way it *should* work,

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

2000-11-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
The whole point is that I want to be able to use the wavetable synthesis features of the card. Newpcm (or oldpcm, for that matter) provides NO support for the AWE device whatsoever, as you can see from your dmesg below. It makes little sense to me that PnP functionality should be tied down to a

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

2000-11-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 10:51:59AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: Sigh. Again, I didn't demand anything. I simply pointed out that functionality had been lost. If I was the author of this code, I would *want* feedback on how it was working out for people out here in userland. I assume

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

2000-11-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 01:11:55PM -0400, Gary Palmer wrote: "Donald J . Maddox" wrote in message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm just suggesting here that it would be nice if the authors of this code would make it _equally functional_ to what was removed. It's not nice to remove functionality

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

2000-11-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
Sigh. Again, I didn't demand anything. I simply pointed out that functionality had been lost. If I was the author of this code, I would *want* feedback on how it was working out for people out here in userland. I assume that the authors in question _do_ want such feedback. On Sun, Sep 26,

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

2000-11-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:41:14AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: PnP is an infrastructure facility used by drivers to detect and configure hardware. The side-effect you were relying on was that the old code would indiscriminately configure any and all PnP hardware regardless of whether a

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

2000-11-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 12:29:46PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: But we do have a working driver for the AWE64. Or rather, it worked fine before the new PnP code was comitted, now it doesn't. It seems to me that this indicates a deficiency in the new PnP code. Isn't that correct? No.

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

2000-11-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:59:33AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:41:14AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: PnP is an infrastructure facility used by drivers to detect and configure hardware. The side-effect you were relying on was that the old code would

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

2000-11-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
Thanks. That is exactly what I have done. The AWE device cannot work this way, but everything else is functional if I remove the PnP controller from my kernel... On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 10:04:38PM +0200, D. Rock wrote: "Donald J . Maddox" schrieb: Is the new PnP code really so smart that it

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

2000-11-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 02:23:18PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: Can you give me a few hints on what would be necessary to get the old driver to work with the new PnP? As has already been explained to you (you _do_ read these messages in their entirety, right?), the old driver has been

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-10-03 Thread Michael Reifenberger
PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Daniel C. Sobral" writes: : Let me chime in here. We *DO* care about ancient AIC drivers as long : as no PCMCIA alternative exists. Justin has said th

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-10-02 Thread Mike Smith
Justin has said that porting old scsi aic to cam wouldn't be too hard, but would still provide a level of buginess that is too high.. Otherwise, i'd have done that a long time ago... I don't know, I have never used the aic driver before. It would seem that aic users were not that

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-10-01 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Daniel C. Sobral" writes: : Let me chime in here. We *DO* care about ancient AIC drivers as long : as no PCMCIA alternative exists. Justin has said that porting old scsi aic to cam wouldn't be too hard, but would still provide a level of

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-10-01 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Daniel C. Sobral" writes: : I don't know, I have never used the aic driver before. It would seem : that aic users were not that unhappy with the driver. I tried getting it to work on 5 different occasions on one of 8 different cards. 0 for 8. I didn't try the

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-29 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
"Rodney W. Grimes" wrote: I also know that we are a lot better off with CAM, and could care less that the old ancient AIC drivers are dead, but some how I am also pretty Let me chime in here. We *DO* care about ancient AIC drivers as long as no PCMCIA alternative exists. sure we won't be

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-29 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Daniel C. Sobral" writes: : Let me chime in here. We *DO* care about ancient AIC drivers as long : as no PCMCIA alternative exists. Justin has said that porting old scsi aic to cam wouldn't be too hard, but would still provide a level of buginess that is too high..

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-28 Thread Doug Rabson
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Amancio Hasty wrote: It requires converting the ancient voxware driver to newbus which isn't really feasable. I am not sure about that ... The irq handling, card registration on the voxware is fairly straight forward. It seems that the awe-specific driver is fairly

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-28 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
[Reinsertion of original answer by jkh] That work is underway, and something to understand about -current is that it doesn't have to actually work at all times during the interim periods between releases. Now, should 4.0 be on the horizon and the situation still be one where

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-27 Thread Doug Rabson
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Donald J . Maddox wrote: On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 12:29:46PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: But we do have a working driver for the AWE64. Or rather, it worked fine before the new PnP code was comitted, now it doesn't. It seems to me that this indicates a deficiency

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-27 Thread Amancio Hasty
It requires converting the ancient voxware driver to newbus which isn't really feasable. I am not sure about that ... The irq handling, card registration on the voxware is fairly straight forward. -- Amancio Hasty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-27 Thread Jordan K. Hubbard
I'm just suggesting here that it would be nice if the authors of this code would make it _equally functional_ to what was removed. It's not nice to remove functionality unconditionally and then provide no replacement at all... That work is underway, and something to understand about -current

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-27 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
I'm just suggesting here that it would be nice if the authors of this code would make it _equally functional_ to what was removed. It's not nice to remove functionality unconditionally and then provide no replacement at all... That work is underway, and something to understand about

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-27 Thread Jordan K. Hubbard
If that was only true. Or should I ask why didn't CAM from -3.3 get reverted to the old scsi code before 3.3 was released. I have seen no less than 2, and perhaps 3 people try to get cards that did work under pre-CAM 3.x working under post-CAM 3.x. I know this is a slippery slope, but it

Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
The new PnP code just plain does not work for my PnP AWE64. If I configure like this: controller pnp0 controller snd0 device sb0 device sbxvi0 device sbmidi0 device awe0 device opl0 device joy0 Which is the way it *should* work,

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Ollivier Robert
According to Donald J . Maddox: I get the same failures as above from the PnP code, but the card still works (mostly) because it has already been configured by the PnP BIOS. The SB16-compatible portion of the card works OK even if I take PnP support out of the kernel completely, and always

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
The whole point is that I want to be able to use the wavetable synthesis features of the card. Newpcm (or oldpcm, for that matter) provides NO support for the AWE device whatsoever, as you can see from your dmesg below. It makes little sense to me that PnP functionality should be tied down to a

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Gary Palmer
"Donald J . Maddox" wrote in message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm just suggesting here that it would be nice if the authors of this code would make it _equally functional_ to what was removed. It's not nice to remove functionality unconditionally and then provide no replacement at all... If

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 01:11:55PM -0400, Gary Palmer wrote: "Donald J . Maddox" wrote in message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm just suggesting here that it would be nice if the authors of this code would make it _equally functional_ to what was removed. It's not nice to remove functionality

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Gary Palmer
"Donald J . Maddox" wrote in message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ummm... I'm not screaming anything, Gary. The intent of my message is just to let the authors of this code know that it is *not* equal in functionality to what was removed. As I said in my original message, it would be nice to see

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Mike Smith
Sigh. Again, I didn't demand anything. I simply pointed out that functionality had been lost. If I was the author of this code, I would *want* feedback on how it was working out for people out here in userland. I assume that the authors in question _do_ want such feedback. Actually, in

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 10:51:59AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: Sigh. Again, I didn't demand anything. I simply pointed out that functionality had been lost. If I was the author of this code, I would *want* feedback on how it was working out for people out here in userland. I assume

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Mike Smith
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 10:51:59AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: Sigh. Again, I didn't demand anything. I simply pointed out that functionality had been lost. If I was the author of this code, I would *want* feedback on how it was working out for people out here in userland. I

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:41:14AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: PnP is an infrastructure facility used by drivers to detect and configure hardware. The side-effect you were relying on was that the old code would indiscriminately configure any and all PnP hardware regardless of whether a

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Mike Smith
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:41:14AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: PnP is an infrastructure facility used by drivers to detect and configure hardware. The side-effect you were relying on was that the old code would indiscriminately configure any and all PnP hardware regardless of whether

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:59:33AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:41:14AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: PnP is an infrastructure facility used by drivers to detect and configure hardware. The side-effect you were relying on was that the old code would

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Kenneth Wayne Culver
This is only partially related, but I still can't even boot a kernel with the pnp0 controller enabled. It just hangs after probing the soundcard. On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Mike Smith wrote: Sigh. Again, I didn't demand anything. I simply pointed out that functionality had been lost. If I

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Mike Smith
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:59:33AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:41:14AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: PnP is an infrastructure facility used by drivers to detect and configure hardware. The side-effect you were relying on was that the old code would

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Mike Smith
This is only partially related, but I still can't even boot a kernel with the pnp0 controller enabled. It just hangs after probing the soundcard. You seem to have accidentally deleted all of the details related to this bug report from your email before sending it. Please try again. -- \\

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread D. Rock
"Donald J . Maddox" schrieb: Is the new PnP code really so smart that it has no use for user intervention ever? My experience indicates that it is not. It would be very nice if the architects of the new PnP code would add back this lost functionality. My (QD) solution for this problem:

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Donald J . Maddox
Thanks. That is exactly what I have done. The AWE device cannot work this way, but everything else is functional if I remove the PnP controller from my kernel... On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 10:04:38PM +0200, D. Rock wrote: "Donald J . Maddox" schrieb: Is the new PnP code really so smart that it

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Hellmuth Michaelis
From the keyboard of Mike Smith: I don't think an explanation of how PnP works or how it fits into our device architecture is feasible at this point, so I'm going to encourage you to do some research of your own. An explanation of how PnP works is not necessary, some good books and papers

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Hellmuth Michaelis
From the keyboard of Kenneth Wayne Culver: This is only partially related, but I still can't even boot a kernel with the pnp0 controller enabled. It just hangs after probing the soundcard. Same here for a week or two in which dfr was very helpful to try to find out what happened. With new

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Mike Smith
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 12:29:46PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: But we do have a working driver for the AWE64. Or rather, it worked fine before the new PnP code was comitted, now it doesn't. It seems to me that this indicates a deficiency in the new PnP code. Isn't that correct?

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Chuck Robey
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Mike Smith wrote: This is only partially related, but I still can't even boot a kernel with the pnp0 controller enabled. It just hangs after probing the soundcard. You seem to have accidentally deleted all of the details related to this bug report from your email

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Alok K. Dhir
Well said. On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Donald J . Maddox wrote: On a more personal note - What *is* your problem, anyway? If you don't have anything useful to contribute to the conversation, why reply at all? Peter answered all my questions, and provided lots of useful information in a single

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Mike Smith
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Mike Smith wrote: This is only partially related, but I still can't even boot a kernel with the pnp0 controller enabled. It just hangs after probing the soundcard. You seem to have accidentally deleted all of the details related to this bug report from your

Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp

1999-09-26 Thread Oliver Fromme
Mike Smith wrote in list.freebsd-current: Can you give me a few hints on what would be necessary to get the old driver to work with the new PnP? As has already been explained to you (you _do_ read these messages in their entirety, right?), the old driver has been obsoleted. You