Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:00:35 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Libretto 50 - US Version and PAO Message-ID: <27313.878713235@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Nov 1997 21:14:39 MST." <199711050414.VAA16352@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199711050414.VAA16352@rocky.mt.sri.com>, Nate Williams writes: >> > On that note, does it mean that any of the other information used in the >> > CIS tuples (besides the size) is relevant? Couldn't we just determine >> > the io size and map it anywhere then? It would *sure* be nice if we >> > could simplify the CIS tuple processing. :) ;) >> >> Well, from my reading of things, yes; I can't actually see anything >> that the card itself could actually be using to determine where it's >> actually mapped. It sounds like the configuration entries are >> basically junk there for the convenience of lazy DOS driver authors. Not quite. There are two kinds of mappings, one where the pcic does all the work and one where the card does the work. The latter kind should be used for leveling driveways with, but that is nontheless the reason for 80% of the CIS complexity. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?27313.878713235>