On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 p...@originative.co.uk wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Peter Wemm [mailto:pe...@netplex.com.au]
Sent: 20 April 1999 21:20
To: Doug Rabson
Cc: Takanori Watanabe; freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: newbus and modem(s)
Doug Rabson wrote
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
I don't think I understand. The DRIVER_MODULE declaration goes in the
downstream driver, not the upstream bus. The bus doesn't need any
knowledge of what drivers might be attached to it.
Well, what about the i386 nexus? It specifically
Doug Rabson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
[..]
Now what I'm curious about is how to handle the nexus and isa/eisa better
so they don't need to explicitly name the children. On one hand it could
look at the hints table to see all the 'at nexus?' declarations, but I
think
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
Doug Rabson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
[..]
Now what I'm curious about is how to handle the nexus and isa/eisa better
so they don't need to explicitly name the children. On one hand it could
look at the hints table to see all
What about creating a second bus, isa_s, for ISA self probing?
Nick
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
Doug Rabson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
[..]
Now what I'm curious about is how to handle the nexus and isa/eisa better
so they don't need to explicitly name
-Original Message-
From: Peter Wemm [mailto:pe...@netplex.com.au]
Sent: 20 April 1999 21:20
To: Doug Rabson
Cc: Takanori Watanabe; freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: newbus and modem(s)
Doug Rabson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
[..]
Now what I'm
Alex Zepeda wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Brian Feldman wrote:
I saw this and just had to note something to you. THINK what branch you
are using. This is _WHERE_ things are being aired publically, and merged
eventually to the STABLE branch.
Gosh, thank you, without your wonderful help
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 takaw...@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp wrote:
In message pine.bsf.3.96.990418205350.3261e-100...@heidi.plazza.it, Nick
Hibm
a wrote:
Why would I say it wasn't ready? Because outside of core (apparently),
nobody was warned/told that this was going to be committed
In message pine.bsf.4.05.9904190929070.85882-100...@herring.nlsystems.com, Do
ug Rabson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 takaw...@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp wrote:
Simple Question.
If there were 'Closed'-Host-Controller-Interface with object-only driver,
Can the vendor make the Host
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Takanori Watanabe wrote:
In message pine.bsf.4.05.9904190929070.85882-100...@herring.nlsystems.com,
Do
ug Rabson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 takaw...@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp wrote:
Simple Question.
If there were 'Closed'-Host-Controller-Interface with
Simple Question.
If there were 'Closed'-Host-Controller-Interface with object-only driver,
Can the vendor make the Host controller recognized without changing
usb.c code?
If he exports a USB bus with the appropriate methods, he will be able to
drop it in, yes. You might have noticed
Doug Rabson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Takanori Watanabe wrote:
In message pine.bsf.4.05.9904190929070.85882-100...@herring.nlsystems.com
, Do
ug Rabson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 takaw...@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp wrote:
Simple Question.
If there were
Let me try to post an example to see whether I understood your question:
Let's assume we have a motherboard with an ISA NHCI (new host controller
interface) apart from the standard PCI UHCI (Universal Host Controller
Interface, Intel) available in the 82371AB chipset.
We boot the system, the
Peter Wemm wrote:
Doug Rabson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Takanori Watanabe wrote:
In message pine.bsf.4.05.9904190929070.85882-100...@herring.nlsystems.co
m
, Do
ug Rabson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 takaw...@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp wrote:
Simple Question.
In message 19990419124505.62d951...@spinner.netplex.com.au, Peter Wemm wrote:
Never mind, I understand now. :-)
Ok, I think I also understand.
The DRIVER_MODULE() macro is consist for static configuration to kick
module initialization routine for every driver.Is it correct?
But are ther more
And then what about newconfig? To me this just adds more truth to the
whole /. argument that *BSD promotes a closed development model.
It's a flawed argument and one that doesn't acknowledge, at least in
the case of FreeBSD, the existence of publicly accessible CVS repositories
along with the
I saw this and just had to note something to you. THINK what branch you
are using. This is _WHERE_ things are being aired publically, and merged
eventually to the STABLE branch.
Gosh, thank you, without your wonderful help and understanding, I NEVER
would have been able to realize this.
FreeBSD is somewhat of a closed development enviroment what
some organizations do is that they maintain their own cvs repository.
CVS repository is guarded by the core members and only certified
committers are allowed to commit code that in addition to not having
a procedure or a processs to
FreeBSD is somewhat of a closed development enviroment what
some organizations do is that they maintain their own cvs repository.
FreeBSD is no more closed than linux is, which is touted as the most
open development project that exists.
Joe Average person can no more commit can't commit code
wghi...@bellsouth.net
To: Alex Zepeda garba...@hooked.net
Cc: Brian Feldman gr...@unixhelp.org; Daniel C. Sobral d...@newsguy.com;
Jordan K. Hubbard j...@zippy.cdrom.com; current curr...@freebsd.org;
wghi...@wghicks.bellsouth.net
Sent: Monday, April 19, 1999 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: newbus and modem(s
All 'source code' control is guarded by a certain group of people in
*every* project, and FreeBSD is no different. It just has different
folks guarding it, who have different standards and requirements.
Perhaps a good step towards understanding would be if those
guarding the process would
As Rick Whitesel wrote ...
Hi:
Just wanted to say that I think the lack of a free-for-all CVS is
exactly what is required to consistently move FreeBSD forward. If someone
Free-for-all as in 'everybody can do commits' ?
This is a joke I hope. There already exists such a thing. It is called
...@hooked.net; wghi...@bellsouth.net; gr...@unixhelp.org;
d...@newsguy.com; j...@zippy.cdrom.com; curr...@freebsd.org;
wghi...@wghicks.bellsouth.net
Sent: Monday, April 19, 1999 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: newbus and modem(s)
As Rick Whitesel wrote ...
Hi:
Just wanted to say that I think the lack
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
I'm as excited as anyone to see progress, especially if it means the
ability to modularize the kernel and load various drivers on demand. But,
alas, it seems this whole thing was rushed horribly.
The first thing I noticed was the panic I got, in
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
I'm as excited as anyone to see progress, especially if it means the
ability to modularize the kernel and load various drivers on demand. But,
alas, it seems this whole thing was rushed horribly.
The first thing I noticed was the panic I got, in
I'm as excited as anyone to see progress, especially if it means the
ability to modularize the kernel and load various drivers on demand. But,
alas, it seems this whole thing was rushed horribly.
Not at all, it's simply something which will require some time to work
out the details of in
Doug Rabson wrote:
I'm not sure about pnp but this patch should fix the overflows (not
tested):
Seems to work fine for me (I had the sio overflow problems too).
Index: sio.c
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/isa/sio.c,v
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
I'm as excited as anyone to see progress, especially if it means the
ability to modularize the kernel and load various drivers on demand. But,
alas, it seems this whole thing was rushed horribly.
Not at all, it's simply something which will
The first thing I noticed was the panic I got, in atkbd_isa_intr, which
has since been fixed.
Well, that is what you have to expect when running current. You are a
betatester, and you can't expect the authors to have access to every
combination of hardware.
Well that's my point.
Alex Zepeda wrote:
Which means that it perhaps should be worked out before being merged. Take
for instance CAM. It didn't work perfectly, but it sure got a lot more
exposure than newbus, and when it was integrated it caused very few
problems.
I think CAM is a very bad example. We *still*
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
I think CAM is a very bad example. We *still* don't have all the
drivers we had, and that includes at least one reasonably requested
driver.
Is that an offer to write the missing drivers?
On the other hand, I don't see we losing anything with
Which means that it perhaps should be worked out before being merged. Take
for instance CAM. It didn't work perfectly, but it sure got a lot more
exposure than newbus, and when it was integrated it caused very few
problems.
The two systems aren't equivalent so it's not really correct to make
And then what about newconfig? To me this just adds more truth to the
whole /. argument that *BSD promotes a closed development model.
I think your perceptions are fundamentally flawed here, it's just that
simple. You can argue the point all you like in -current, but it
won't change that fact
Alex Zepeda wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
I think CAM is a very bad example. We *still* don't have all the
drivers we had, and that includes at least one reasonably requested
driver.
Is that an offer to write the missing drivers?
Is that sidetracking the
Why would I say it wasn't ready? Because outside of core (apparently),
nobody was warned/told that this was going to be committed in a few
days/hours/minutes.
The USB code has been using newbus for over 4 months now. And up to now
we've had only one bug to fix. The rest was feature requests.
In message pine.bsf.3.96.990418205350.3261e-100...@heidi.plazza.it, Nick Hibm
a wrote:
Why would I say it wasn't ready? Because outside of core (apparently),
nobody was warned/told that this was going to be committed in a few
days/hours/minutes.
I've ported the newconfig style USB code of
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
I think CAM is a very bad example. We *still* don't have all the
drivers we had, and that includes at least one reasonably requested
driver.
Is that an offer to write the missing drivers?
On the
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Brian Feldman wrote:
I saw this and just had to note something to you. THINK what branch you
are using. This is _WHERE_ things are being aired publically, and merged
eventually to the STABLE branch.
Gosh, thank you, without your wonderful help and understanding, I NEVER
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Brian Feldman wrote:
I saw this and just had to note something to you. THINK what branch you
are using. This is _WHERE_ things are being aired publically, and merged
eventually to the STABLE branch.
Gosh, thank you, without
I'm as excited as anyone to see progress, especially if it means the
ability to modularize the kernel and load various drivers on demand. But,
alas, it seems this whole thing was rushed horribly.
The first thing I noticed was the panic I got, in atkbd_isa_intr, which
has since been fixed.
But
40 matches
Mail list logo
