On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:27:50 -0400
Brad wrote:
>
> Does that say ATI or NVIDIA?
>
Well, true, but he initially said "any azalia(4) adapter".
I thought checking for regressions was important, too.
On Thursday 25 June 2009 02:12:22 Bryan wrote:
> sorry,
>
>
> azalia0 at pci0 dev 27 function 0 "Intel 82801H HD Audio" rev 0x02:
^^^
> apic 2 int 21 (irq 9)
> azalia0: codecs: Sigmatel STAC9205X, Conexant/0x2c06, using Sigmatel
> STAC9205X
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 23:29, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> only 4 people have ati or nvidia azalia(4)?
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:42:49AM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 01:07:37AM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 12:40:31AM +, Owain Ainsworth wrote:
>
only 4 people have ati or nvidia azalia(4)?
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:42:49AM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 01:07:37AM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 12:40:31AM +, Owain Ainsworth wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 05:11:16PM -0500, Brad wrote:
On Jun 24, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 04:28:10PM +0200, Dariusz Swiderski wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Dariusz Swiderski wrote:
On Jun 24, 2009, at 2:30 AM, Brad wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 09:06:34PM -, sfi...@kefir.sfires.net
wrote:
hi,
follow
> To be clear this must be tested on many em(4) chips especially the ICH
> variants because it is more important that this does not break setups that
> are currently working.
Claudio speaks the truth.
What would you rather have?
New support for new chips which less than 1% of people have today,
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 04:28:10PM +0200, Dariusz Swiderski wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Dariusz Swiderski wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 2009, at 2:30 AM, Brad wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 09:06:34PM -, sfi...@kefir.sfires.net wrote:
> > > > hi,
> > > >
> > > > following diff brings s
On Jun 24, 2009, at 2:30 AM, Brad wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 09:06:34PM -, sfi...@kefir.sfires.net
wrote:
hi,
following diff brings support for ICH10 R BM LF chip as well, basic
tests
done by matthew at dempsky org (thanks).
no changes to the code except for binging in new defines
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Dariusz Swiderski wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2009, at 2:30 AM, Brad wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 09:06:34PM -, sfi...@kefir.sfires.net wrote:
> > > hi,
> > >
> > > following diff brings support for ICH10 R BM LF chip as well, basic tests
> > > done by matthew at dempsky
Jason McIntyre wrote on Wed 24.Jun'09 at 14:22:20 +0100
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 02:15:06PM +0200, LEVAI Daniel wrote:
> >
> > If anyone is interested, here is a patch to mount_nfs' man page, to include
> > mount_nfs(8) parameters' long versions (the fstab(5) style long versions).
> > Perhaps r
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 02:15:06PM +0200, LEVAI Daniel wrote:
>
> If anyone is interested, here is a patch to mount_nfs' man page, to include
> mount_nfs(8) parameters' long versions (the fstab(5) style long versions).
> Perhaps referring to the options as "long versions" is not quite right, but
>
Having this logged at level -xmisc seems a bit of overkill (and
in particular, causes excessive console blocking if you use a serial
console and have it set to a "normal" speed).
What does anyone think about moving this up to -xnoisy?
...
Jun 24 12:35:52 br1-pl7 /bsd: pf_map_addr: selected addres
12 matches
Mail list logo
