Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 10:03:44 +0800 (CST) From: Michael Robinson <robinson@netrinsics.com> To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: compatibility list Message-ID: <199903130203.KAA35091@netrinsics.com> In-Reply-To: <19990313025010.C64180@clear.co.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe Abley <jabley@clear.co.nz> writes: >Is the idea to treat _all_ busses as potentially supporting nomadic devices, >to give maximum genericism? Is there _any_ device that needs to be treated >as permenant? > >If _all_ devices are generically considered removable, does this make a >devfs-type scheme more workable? Or were the previous issues with devfs >different? I see two related issues: First, the controllers that manage removable devices may themselves be removable, or otherwise controlled by controllers with such management features. Consider the pathological case of a docking station with a PCI card slot filled with a PCMCIA controller which has USB PC-CARD connected to a USB SCSI adapter. Any removeable device abstraction has to recurse elegantly. Which brings up the second point, which is how to handle bootstrapping under this abstraction. I haven't had a chance to look at the new three-stage boot, but I wonder whether it can boot a kernel image from a PC-CARD ATA device. I guess my question is, where exactly does one draw the line about "no probing during boot". Are BIOS devices forever and always a special case? What about ROM-assisted "net-boot" and the like? -Michael Robinson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903130203.KAA35091>