From owner-freebsd-current Wed Dec 8 5:54:21 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from hurricane.columbus.rr.com (m4.columbus.rr.com [204.210.252.19]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C332214EF5; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 05:54:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from caa@columbus.rr.com) Received: from columbus.rr.com ([24.95.60.151]) by hurricane.columbus.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 08:54:11 -0500 Received: (from caa@localhost) by columbus.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA00549; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 08:54:15 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from caa) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 08:54:15 -0500 From: "Charles Anderson" To: Mike Smith Cc: Charles Anderson , Seigo Tanimura , schuerge@wjpserver.CS.Uni-SB.DE, fn@radio-do.de, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: AWE64 problems Message-ID: <19991208085415.A534@midgard.dhs.org> References: <19991208000746.A1622@midgard.dhs.org> <199912080513.VAA07525@mass.cdrom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.6i In-Reply-To: <199912080513.VAA07525@mass.cdrom.com>; from Mike Smith on Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 09:13:41PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG So then what is -1 and why does it work when -100 doesn't? (I tried it) -Charlie On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 09:13:41PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: > > I looked for some meaning to the -100, is this documented somewhere? > > It's not, yet. We should move to using some defines for this. > A while back I proposed something like: > > #define DEVICE_MATCH_EXACT -100 > #define DEVICE_MATCH_CLASS -200 > #define DEVICE_MATCH_GENERIC -300 > > The 'exact' response is still < 0 so that you can tune between two > 'exact' drivers on a per-instance basis. The meanings should be pretty > obvious... > > > Who calls it? > > > > -Charlie > > > > On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 11:30:46AM +0900, Seigo Tanimura wrote: > > > On Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:00:02 +0100 (MET), > > > Thomas Schuerger said: > > > > > > >> --- sbc.c.orig Mon Dec 6 19:26:31 1999 > > > >> +++ sbc.c Tue Dec 7 22:15:25 1999 > > > >> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ > > > >> if (error) > > > >> return error; > > > >> else > > > >> - return -100; > > > >> + return -1; > > > >> } > > > >> > > > >> static int > > > > > > Thomas> Works fine for me. Thanks!!! > > > > > > > > > Yes, this patch should work. The probe likelyhood(do we call it so?) for > > > unknown device is -100, so it does not make sense for sbc to return > > > -100. > > > > > > -1 might be too high, -50 sounds good to me. -- Charles Anderson caa@columbus.rr.com No quote, no nothin' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message