Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:09:15 +0900 From: tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp To: peter@netplex.com.au Cc: tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp Subject: Re: sbc and pcm Message-ID: <14403.12747.511556.68187Y@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: In your message of "Tue, 23 Nov 1999 04:22:39 %2B0800" <19991122202239.5A75C1C6D@overcee.netplex.com.au> References: <winter@jurai.net> <Pine.BSF.4.20.9911221427070.7305-100000@sasami.jurai.net> <19991122202239.5A75C1C6D@overcee.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 04:22:39 +0800, Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> said: >> Mostly, sbc.c is handling PnP ID matching in a totally bogus manner. Peter> Yes, it's quite bogus and is incompatible with motherboard devices. There Peter> should be no vendor ID references in there at all, that's for card ID, not Peter> device id. I am now working to tidy up the sbc probe. Would it be enough for the sound chips on motherboards to check the logical device ID of 0x??008c0e? How does the result of pnpinfo(1) for a motherboard chip look like? -- Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <tanimura@freebsd.org> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14403.12747.511556.68187Y>