From owner-freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 4 20:26:36 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450BB16A4CE for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:26:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from liberty.onthenet.com.au (liberty.OntheNet.com.au [203.22.124.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900BF43FBD for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:26:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grehan@freebsd.org) Received: from freebsd.org (CPE-30-124.dsl.onthenet.net [203.144.30.124]) hB54QNZG034721; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:26:24 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from grehan@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <3FD008EB.7050109@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 14:26:19 +1000 From: Peter Grehan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030524 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sean Welch References: <33096697.1070594219595.JavaMail.root@gonzo.psp.pas.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <33096697.1070594219595.JavaMail.root@gonzo.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: iBook powerpc FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the PowerPC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 04:26:36 -0000 > I'm a tad confused about the bmac stuff in general. You said > it was to support the ethernet port? Is it a rework of something > else (I've certainly been able to use my iBook ethernet port without > issue...)? It's the built-in ethernet on the early iMacs, the beige G3, and the B&W G3. iBooks use the gmac driver, which works fine. > Also, not to throw more stuff onto your plate but you may > remember we had a short discussion about the wireless card > and the iBook modem a while back. At the time you seemed to > think that the wireless card wouldn't be too hard to get working; > is that still on the docket or has it proven to be more difficult than > you originally thought? Or maybe it was forgotten in favor of > more important architectural work? (*NOT* pushing here -- just > curious...) I did have a look, and the code that enables the wireless part of the macio chip was quite hideous, so I thought I'd wait a while until I'd worked out something less of a hack. The 'lost' code has some mods to the top-level macio code to allow underlying devices to enable/disable themselves without poking around in address space that didn't belong to them, and this would have made the wireless attachment a bit simpler. More code to resurrect from dusty memory :-) later, Peter.