From owner-freebsd-current Tue Apr 4 3:35:27 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from freebsd.dk (freebsd.dk [212.242.42.178]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E14E37B6B9 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 03:35:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sos@freebsd.dk) Received: (from sos@localhost) by freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.1) id MAA48408; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:34:52 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from sos) From: Soren Schmidt Message-Id: <200004041034.MAA48408@freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: ATA & 82C596 bug in 4.0-RELEASE? In-Reply-To: <200004041019.MAA65929@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> from John Hay at "Apr 4, 2000 12:19:03 pm" To: jhay@mikom.csir.co.za (John Hay) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:34:52 +0200 (CEST) Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG It seems John Hay wrote: > > > > Yup VIA has a new version of the 82C596 chip, in their usual visdom they > > change the interface, but not the chip ID (I'll nominate VIA for the > > way they do versioning). However I have worked out the solution with > > Chris Wiener , that had this problem also and > > kindly helped testing. Se the patch belowm try it and let me know.. > > Is it possible that something like that is happening with the 82C586 > too? The chip on our boards are all marked VT82C586B. I'll try the > patch although it seems to be for the 596? Well I wouldn't be surpriced at that :) > Should I just install 3.X and then copy a newer kernel over? 3.4 > install perfectly and dma also works without a problem if enabled > with flags 0xa0ff. (Although that is probably a slower dma?) I need a verbose boot log from the machine so I can see if VIA changed the chip ID or at least the revision on it... -Søren To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message