From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Aug 28 10:48:35 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id KAA16403
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:48:35 -0700
Received: from mailhub.cts.com (mailhub.cts.com [192.188.72.25])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA16393
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:48:31 -0700
Received: from io.cts.com by mailhub.cts.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #18) id m0sn8H9-000V1AC; Mon, 28 Aug 95 10:47 PDT
Received: (from root@localhost) by io.cts.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id KAA01743; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:47:08 -0700
From: Morgan Davis <root@io.cts.com>
Message-Id: <199508281747.KAA01743@io.cts.com>
Subject: Re: wd0 detect fails
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, current@freebsd.org, vak@cronyx.ru
In-Reply-To: <3969.809616183@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Aug 28, 95 06:23:03 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1088      
Sender: current-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

Jordan K. Hubbard writes:
> 
> > Cdrom support was added.  The following change looks wrong (but works
> > here):
> > 
> > diff -c -2 -r1.81 wd.c
> > *** 1.81	1995/05/16 07:52:04
> > --- wd.c	1995/08/19 19:40:54
> > [change elided]
> 
> So, did this work?  Should we bring it into -current?  It was just
> this type of potentially fatal WDC interaction that the code was
> committed to test!

No.  Like you, I was a little confused by this, too.  Bruce's diff was
not a fix.  It was a comparison between the older wd.c and the current
one that has the changes in it for IDE CD-ROM support.

I did a little debugging by putting some printfs in the code and
rebooting my system to see what kind of status result my caching IDE
controller returned, and it had an extra, unexpected bit turned on.
The official fix will likely involve masking out that bit when
checking for the desired status result.  Bruce can tell you more.

In any case, at least we know what the trouble is, and I am running
everything -current except for my patch that gets around the
unexpected status result.

--Morgan