Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 22:06:07 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: wd? numbering question Message-ID: <199606212006.WAA22722@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199606210835.BAA00819@seagull.rtd.com> from Don Yuniskis at "Jun 21, 96 01:35:25 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Don Yuniskis wrote: > I think you'll get bit because the /dev/wd* entries would need a different > minor device encoding scheme (I'm assuming he's asking to have wd0 be the > *first* wd drive and wd1 be the second -- regardless of which controller! > so wd1 could end up on wdc1) The SCSI drivers know how to handle it, so i don't see why the wdc driver cannot be taught to do it similarly. Of course, some parts of the attach routine have to be rewritten, since the fixed assignment between wd? and wdc? must be relinguished. Other parts of config(8) need to be rewritten in order to allow both variants: disk wd0 on wdc0 drive 0 disk wd1 on wdc? This ensures that wd0 will always be hard-wired to the first drive of the first controller, while wd1 would be found on any controller. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606212006.WAA22722>