Missing Drives off of a Promise SATA300 TX4 controller
I've got two WD drives attached to a promise SATA300 TX4 controller. The controller appears to be detected and reports the drives during a verbose boot, but no devices are ever created and atacontrol list fails to report them: atapci0: Promise PDC40718 SATA300 controller port 0xc400-0xc47f,0xc800-0xc8ff mem 0xde121000-0xde121fff,0xde10-0xde11 irq 12 at device 11.0 on pci1 pci1: child atapci0 requested type 4 for rid 0x20, but the BAR says it is an mem io atapci0: [MPSAFE] atapci0: Reserved 0x2 bytes for rid 0x20 type 3 at 0xde10 atapci0: Reserved 0x1000 bytes for rid 0x1c type 3 at 0xde121000 atapci0: [MPSAFE] ata2: ATA channel 0 on atapci0 ata2: SATA connect ready time=0ms ata2: sata_connect devices=0x1ATA_MASTER ata2: [MPSAFE] ata3: ATA channel 1 on atapci0 ata3: SATA connect status= ata3: [MPSAFE] ata4: ATA channel 2 on atapci0 ata4: SATA connect ready time=0ms ata4: sata_connect devices=0x1ATA_MASTER ata4: [MPSAFE] ata5: ATA channel 3 on atapci0 ata5: SATA connect status= ata5: [MPSAFE] atacontrol list ATA channel 0: Master: ad0 WDC WD200BB-00AUA1/18.20D18 ATA/ATAPI revision 5 Slave: no device present ATA channel 1: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 2: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 3: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 4: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ATA channel 5: Master: no device present Slave: no device present ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cross-building ports
Thanks for clarifying that I wasn't just missing the obvious. I suppose that's not surprising given all the complicated things some builds do to configure themselves based on testing the environment. What about the simple case of building ia32 on an amd64 host? (Assuming WITH_LIB32 has been set in make.conf) I have the impression that amd64 has been setup with an eye toward running a pure amd64 setup, but one of the principle benefits of amd64 is it's support for i386 binaries and libraries... It would be nice (and probably easier on many ports) if the system was geared to have more ia32 centric userland--which I might add is the tradition for mang 64-bit OSs. Having my 64-bit ls is great and all, but really unnecessary + wasteful. Are these sorts of changes in the pipeline or? -Paul From Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:08:44PM -0800: On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:47:24PM -0800, Paul Allen wrote: Is there a command-line option to cause ports to be built for a different architecture than that of the native system? This is not supported. Kris -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
