From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 2 20:57:11 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id UAA21068 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 1995 20:57:11 -0700 Received: from hq.icb.chel.su (icb-rich-gw.icb.chel.su [193.125.10.34]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA21062 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 1995 20:56:58 -0700 Received: from localhost (babkin@localhost) by hq.icb.chel.su (8.6.5/8.6.5) id JAA03885; Mon, 3 Apr 1995 09:56:37 -0500 From: "Serge A. Babkin" Message-Id: <199504031456.JAA03885@hq.icb.chel.su> Subject: Re: netboot for each card? To: martin@victor.innovus.com (Martin Renters) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 09:56:37 -0500 (GMT-0500) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199504030234.WAA16955@victor.innovus.com> from "Martin Renters" at Apr 2, 95 10:34:40 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1057 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I was just looking at that recent changes made to include the 3C509 > support. It seems netboot has now expanded past the 16K boundary, Yes, if it includes support for all cards. But when I tried to run netboot.com with support for all cards what has size more than 16K it goes crazy. Probably 16K limit is compiled somewhere as a constant ? > making the ROM version as distributed useless. We could bump the size of > the ROM image to 32K, but some cards may not work with ROMs of that size. > > I was wondering if it makes sense to build a netboot.rom for each of the > supported cards. This would leave us with a smaller that 16K rom image > (hopefully) for each of the cards which could then actually be used by > somebody. > > Comments? Nice idea. And to build netboot.com for each of the supported cards because I think that anybody wants first to be shure that it really works with his card and only then to burn it into ROM. Serge Babkin ! (babkin@hq.icb.chel.su) ! Headquarter of Joint Stock Bank "Chelindbank" ! Chelyabinsk, Russia