Chris wrote:
I am glad to hear from Soren that this 'misconfiguration' will be
supported in 4.0
As always when a misconfiguration (read 'not to spec') is used enough
then it quickly becomes somewhat of a de facto standard.
Old message, but still in need for reply.
Yeah, like isa shared
Hi folks,
I didn't see any pointers other than pilot error raised in the recent
thread with subject line:
Subject: Re: IDE quirk in 3.2-STABLE kernel ?
Perhaps those of you who're in support of the pilot error notion could
have a look at PR 13174 and comment? The originator claims that his
I didn't see any pointers other than pilot error raised in the
recent
thread with subject line:
Subject: Re: IDE quirk in 3.2-STABLE kernel ?
Perhaps those of you who're in support of the pilot error notion
could
have a look at PR 13174 and comment
I didn't see any pointers other than pilot error raised in the
recent
thread with subject line:
Subject: Re: IDE quirk in 3.2-STABLE kernel ?
Perhaps those of you who're in support of the pilot error notion
could
have a look at PR 13174 and comment
Hi folks,
I didn't see any pointers other than pilot error raised in the recent
thread with subject line:
Subject: Re: IDE quirk in 3.2-STABLE kernel ?
Perhaps those of you who're in support of the pilot error notion could
have a look at PR 13174 and comment? The originator claims that his
I didn't see any pointers other than pilot error raised in the
recent
thread with subject line:
Subject: Re: IDE quirk in 3.2-STABLE kernel ?
Perhaps those of you who're in support of the pilot error notion
could
have a look at PR 13174 and comment
I didn't see any pointers other than pilot error raised in the
recent
thread with subject line:
Subject: Re: IDE quirk in 3.2-STABLE kernel ?
Perhaps those of you who're in support of the pilot error notion
could
have a look at PR 13174 and comment
Odd, all of the machines that I've seen shipped lately have their
CDROMs on a secondary IDE controller as SLAVE with no master. Works
great, and the FreeBSD drivers work well when hacked to not require
a master fo there to be a slave
i commented out one line in wd.c, wdprobe() and it
Odd, all of the machines that I've seen shipped lately have their
CDROMs on a secondary IDE controller as SLAVE with no master. Works
great, and the FreeBSD drivers work well when hacked to not require
a master fo there to be a slave
i commented out one line in wd.c, wdprobe() and it
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 11:15:25PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
# In message 37ab8b48.4a791...@tig.com.au Chris writes:
# : As always when a misconfiguration (read 'not to spec') is used enough
# : then it quickly becomes somewhat of a de facto standard.
#
# I'd love to see chapter and verse on this
It seems Biju Susmer wrote:
OK, i went to net and got this page
(http://www.mit.edu/afs/sipb.mit.edu/project/linux/docs/faq/AT
API-FAQ) there
also they say it should be MASTER. Problem is not with me.
The vendor didn't
follow the specs. PC never followd specs i think ;)
Some one
Wes Peters wrote:
Biju Susmer wrote:
Regardless, you have to have 1 master and 0 or 1 slaves one every IDE
controller. You can't run a controller with just a slave.
I dont think it should be a problem.. Since other OSs can work with this
configuration without any problem, why
In message 001201bedfb8$92fa3440$[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Biju Susmer" writes:
: I dont think it should be a problem.. Since other OSs can work with this
: configuration without any problem, why FBSD should refuse this configuration?
: When i was using 2.2.7-stable, FBSD used to recognize my CDROM
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Brian
F. Feldman" writes:
: Since it was made to work? The problem here is that this person, for some
: reason, is misconfiguring their system and expecting it to work as if it
: were configured properly.
Odd, all of the machines that I've seen shipped lately have
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chris writes:
: As always when a misconfiguration (read 'not to spec') is used enough
: then it quickly becomes somewhat of a de facto standard.
I'd love to see chapter and verse on this :-)
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On 06-Aug-99 Wes Peters wrote:
Because it's wrong. If you don't believe me, buy a copy of the spec. Why
should we waste valuable developer time trying to support mis-configured
hardware?
Since when has PC hardware followed the specs?
Because it's wrong. If you don't believe me, buy a copy of
the spec. Why
should we waste valuable developer time trying to support
mis-configured
hardware?
The box was shipped to me this way.. i'm no a hardware expert to know
the IDE
specs. As far as i know, it work for Windows
On 06-Aug-99 Brian F. Feldman wrote:
Since when has PC hardware followed the specs?
Since it was made to work? The problem here is that this person, for some
reason, is misconfiguring their system and expecting it to work as if it
were configured properly.
Sure but a lot of PC's are
OK, i went to net and got this page
(http://www.mit.edu/afs/sipb.mit.edu/project/linux/docs/faq/AT
API-FAQ) there
also they say it should be MASTER. Problem is not with me.
The vendor didn't
follow the specs. PC never followd specs i think ;)
Some one please put this in an FAQ (if it is
It seems Biju Susmer wrote:
OK, i went to net and got this page
(http://www.mit.edu/afs/sipb.mit.edu/project/linux/docs/faq/AT
API-FAQ) there
also they say it should be MASTER. Problem is not with me.
The vendor didn't
follow the specs. PC never followd specs i think ;)
Some one
Wes Peters wrote:
Biju Susmer wrote:
Regardless, you have to have 1 master and 0 or 1 slaves one every IDE
controller. You can't run a controller with just a slave.
I dont think it should be a problem.. Since other OSs can work with this
configuration without any problem, why
In message 001201bedfb8$92fa3440$88291...@wipro.tcpn.com Biju Susmer writes:
: I dont think it should be a problem.. Since other OSs can work with this
: configuration without any problem, why FBSD should refuse this configuration?
: When i was using 2.2.7-stable, FBSD used to recognize my CDROM
In message
pine.bsf.4.10.9908060200140.89797-100...@janus.syracuse.net Brian
F. Feldman writes:
: Since it was made to work? The problem here is that this person, for some
: reason, is misconfiguring their system and expecting it to work as if it
: were configured properly.
Odd, all of the
In message 37ab8b48.4a791...@tig.com.au Chris writes:
: As always when a misconfiguration (read 'not to spec') is used enough
: then it quickly becomes somewhat of a de facto standard.
I'd love to see chapter and verse on this :-)
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with
When moving the CDROM to master though can cause problems. I had a
Chaintech 5TDM board which refused to acknowledge a CDROM as secondary
master. I thought it was a bug in FBSD since RH Linux could detect my
CDROM as a secondary slave (only device on the controller). I never got
a straight
Biju Susmer wrote:
Regardless, you have to have 1 master and 0 or 1 slaves one every IDE
controller. You can't run a controller with just a slave.
I dont think it should be a problem.. Since other OSs can work with this
configuration without any problem, why FBSD should refuse this
On 06-Aug-99 Wes Peters wrote:
Because it's wrong. If you don't believe me, buy a copy of the spec. Why
should we waste valuable developer time trying to support mis-configured
hardware?
Since when has PC hardware followed the specs?
---
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On 06-Aug-99 Wes Peters wrote:
Because it's wrong. If you don't believe me, buy a copy of the spec. Why
should we waste valuable developer time trying to support mis-configured
hardware?
Since when has PC hardware followed the specs?
Because it's wrong. If you don't believe me, buy a copy of
the spec. Why
should we waste valuable developer time trying to support
mis-configured
hardware?
The box was shipped to me this way.. i'm no a hardware expert to know the IDE
specs. As far as i know, it work for Windows
OK, i went to net and got this page
(http://www.mit.edu/afs/sipb.mit.edu/project/linux/docs/faq/AT
API-FAQ) there
also they say it should be MASTER. Problem is not with me.
The vendor didn't
follow the specs. PC never followd specs i think ;)
Some one please put this in an FAQ (if it is
When moving the CDROM to master though can cause problems. I had a
Chaintech 5TDM board which refused to acknowledge a CDROM as secondary
master. I thought it was a bug in FBSD since RH Linux could detect my
CDROM as a secondary slave (only device on the controller). I never got
a straight
Chris wrote:
When moving the CDROM to master though can cause problems. I had a
Chaintech 5TDM board which refused to acknowledge a CDROM as secondary
master. I thought it was a bug in FBSD since RH Linux could detect my
CDROM as a secondary slave (only device on the controller). I never
Regardless, you have to have 1 master and 0 or 1 slaves one every IDE
controller. You can't run a controller with just a slave.
I dont think it should be a problem.. Since other OSs can work with this
configuration without any problem, why FBSD should refuse this configuration?
When i was
Biju Susmer wrote:
Regardless, you have to have 1 master and 0 or 1 slaves one every IDE
controller. You can't run a controller with just a slave.
I dont think it should be a problem.. Since other OSs can work with this
configuration without any problem, why FBSD should refuse this
On 06-Aug-99 Wes Peters wrote:
Because it's wrong. If you don't believe me, buy a copy of the spec. Why
should we waste valuable developer time trying to support mis-configured
hardware?
Since when has PC hardware followed the specs?
---
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Biju Susmer wrote:
hi,
I tried yesterday to make the kernel understand my CD ROM drive.. but it
refused. Here is the dmesg (of boot -v)... is my config wrong or i missed
something? The drive is Acer 32X and connected as secondary slave. It is seen by
Win98 and BIOS.
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Biju Susmer wrote:
hi,
I tried yesterday to make the kernel understand my CD ROM drive.. but it
refused. Here is the dmesg (of boot -v)... is my config wrong or i missed
something? The drive is Acer 32X and connected as secondary slave. It is seen
by
Win98 and BIOS.
Yes, i'm also facing the same problem in 3.2 stable (wdc1 not found at 0x170).
When i put a CD-ROM (ATAPI, secondary slave) sometimes the controller comes up
;) I tried my own kernel (by changing the IDE delay), it didn't work.
-biju
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, i'm also facing the same problem in 3.2 stable (wdc1 not found at 0x170).
When i put a CD-ROM (ATAPI, secondary slave) sometimes the controller comes up
;) I tried my own kernel (by changing the IDE delay), it didn't work.
-biju
Normally for my own kernel, I set the IDE delay very low
03, 1999 4:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IDE quirk in 3.2-STABLE kernel ?
Yes, i'm also facing the same problem in 3.2 stable (wdc1 not found at 0x170).
When i put a CD-ROM (ATAPI, secondary slave) sometimes the controller comes up
;) I tried my own kernel
I tried with delay 12000, 6000, 8000 (I admit that i really don't know how this
delay helps) but no use... only putting a CD in the drive while booting helps.
-biju
I just set IDE_DELAY=4000 in my 3.2-STABLE kernel, and now it sees all disks
on both controllers. I think the problem was that
hi,
I tried yesterday to make the kernel understand my CD ROM drive.. but it
refused. Here is the dmesg (of boot -v)... is my config wrong or i missed
something? The drive is Acer 32X and connected as secondary slave. It is seen by
Win98 and BIOS. Can someone help?
And what does "ide_pci:
Yes, i'm also facing the same problem in 3.2 stable (wdc1 not found at 0x170).
When i put a CD-ROM (ATAPI, secondary slave) sometimes the controller comes up
;) I tried my own kernel (by changing the IDE delay), it didn't work.
-biju
-Original Message-
From:
Yes, i'm also facing the same problem in 3.2 stable (wdc1 not found at 0x170).
When i put a CD-ROM (ATAPI, secondary slave) sometimes the controller comes up
;) I tried my own kernel (by changing the IDE delay), it didn't work.
-biju
Normally for my own kernel, I set the IDE delay very low
Sharkey
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 4:28 PM
To: b...@wipinfo.soft.net
Cc: hack...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: IDE quirk in 3.2-STABLE kernel ?
Yes, i'm also facing the same problem in 3.2 stable (wdc1 not found at 0x170).
When i put a CD-ROM (ATAPI, secondary slave) sometimes the controller
I tried with delay 12000, 6000, 8000 (I admit that i really don't know how
this
delay helps) but no use... only putting a CD in the drive while booting helps.
-biju
I just set IDE_DELAY=4000 in my 3.2-STABLE kernel, and now it sees all disks
on both controllers. I think the problem was that
I tried with delay 12000, 6000, 8000 (I admit that i really
don't know how this
delay helps) but no use... only putting a CD in the drive
while booting helps.
-biju
I just set IDE_DELAY=4000 in my 3.2-STABLE kernel, and now it
sees all disks
on both controllers. I think the problem
hi,
I tried yesterday to make the kernel understand my CD ROM drive.. but it
refused. Here is the dmesg (of boot -v)... is my config wrong or i missed
something? The drive is Acer 32X and connected as secondary slave. It is seen by
Win98 and BIOS. Can someone help?
And what does ide_pci:
48 matches
Mail list logo
