From owner-freebsd-sparc Thu Nov 19 06:05:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA03623 for freebsd-sparc-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:05:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from sunny.bahnhof.se (sunny.bahnhof.se [193.44.91.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA03611; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:05:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chris@bahnhof.se) Received: from metro (metro.bahnhof.se [193.44.91.2]) by sunny.bahnhof.se (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA12410; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:04:20 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:04:21 +0100 (MET) From: Christopher Arnold X-Sender: chris@metro To: Gary Palmer cc: freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Starting point? In-Reply-To: <6481.911483044@gjp.erols.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Gary Palmer wrote: > This to me says that the initial development should be done on a USPARC PCI > based box. Why? All that is needed is the host -> pci bridge support code, and > we get a whole slew of debugged and working PCI drivers. On the other hand, > going the SBUS route, we not only have to debug SBUS bridge & support code, > but also the drivers to (since I can virtually guarentee they won't work out > of the box) > To me this makes sense, not that i don't want SBUS support (or sun4m support) but it advances the project and gives it the attention it needs. So why not go the quickest/easiest path and then move on from there. I'm quite surtain that as soon as there is some PCI based systems up and running the pressure/interest for SBUS and older architectures will increase and people will start coding. /chris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-sparc" in the body of the message