From owner-cvs-sys  Sun Mar  1 09:09:12 1998
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-sys>
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA04510
          for cvs-sys-outgoing; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 09:09:12 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-cvs-sys)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA04427;
          Sun, 1 Mar 1998 09:09:01 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA25319; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 09:09:01 -0800 (PST)
To: sos@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: asami@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG,
        cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 01 Mar 1998 18:06:20 +0100."
             <199803011706.SAA09260@sos.freebsd.dk> 
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 09:09:01 -0800
Message-ID: <25315.888772141@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > Really?  They certainly didn't get ID'd properly before I applied
> > Satoshi's patch!
> 
> What?? I have two TX based systems here, and they have found those
> chips since the first commit went in ????

I have the dmesg logs on catfish which clearly show them *not* being
properly ID'd.  Are we talking about the same branch here?  I tested
these in 2.2 and approved them for 2.2 - if Satoshi has gone and
mangled -current (I no longer have the original commit message and
can't check) then I take no responsibility for this. :)

						Jordan