From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 22 16:06:41 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8638116A4CE for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:06:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from vidi.ucdavis.edu (vidi.ucdavis.edu [169.237.105.39]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B828243D53 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:06:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cjmckenzie@ucdavis.edu) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])hBN06at3006964 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:06:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:06:36 -0800 (PST) From: Chris McKenzie X-X-Sender: cjm@vidi.ucdavis.edu To: current@freebsd.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:23:56 -0800 Subject: vendor id && product id discrepency for Siemens SS1021 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:06:41 -0000 I own a Siemens SpeedStream 1021 cardbus card. After manually patching the kernel and trying 5.2RC1 and having neither one work with the card (although both claim to support it) I have decided to mail the list with a possible bug. My SS1021 reports a vendor=0x104c and a dev=0x8400 as opposed to the perforce changes and 5.2RC1 implementation which claims the dev=0x0002 and vendor=0x02ac. With either one hard coded in, I still get a "Resource not specified in CIS". However from some mailing lists (particularly freebsd-mobile) it appears that at least one other person was successful with this card. Any help would be appreciated. Sincerely, Christopher J. McKenzie cjm@ucdavis.edu