From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Feb 26 12:30:33 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from hda.hda.com (hda-bicnet.bicnet.net [209.244.238.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6C614F94 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:30:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dufault@hda.hda.com) Received: (from dufault@localhost) by hda.hda.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA29088; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:22:04 -0500 (EST) From: Peter Dufault Message-Id: <199902262022.PAA29088@hda.hda.com> Subject: Re: pccardd, pccardc, the LabPC+, and the NIDAQ 1200 In-Reply-To: <199902251003.DAA03943@harmony.village.org> from Warner Losh at "Feb 25, 99 03:03:21 am" To: imp@harmony.village.org (Warner Losh) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:21:59 -0500 (EST) Cc: dufault@hda.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL25 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I don't know why pccardc enabler would work, but I don't understand > that at all... I lied earlier - pccardc and pccardd weren't using the same port. By hand I was using 0x260 while pccardd was trying to use 0x250. The board says it can decode 5 address lines and from this pccardd is deciding it needs 32 consecutive ports without any restriction on the alignment, and in this case handing it port 0x250. I assume this is wrong unless the PCCARD mapping registers are more sophisticated than I expect. I'm about to change pccardd to ensure the returned port address is aligned on a mod bus size boundary - if I'm missing something shout now. I should check gnats on this one to see if I'm encountering a known problem. Peter -- Peter Dufault (dufault@hda.com) Realtime development, Machine control, HD Associates, Inc. Safety critical systems, Agency approval To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message