From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Jan 29 02:18:55 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA11294
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 02:18:55 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: (from sos@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA11284;
          Thu, 29 Jan 1998 02:18:52 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from sos)
Message-Id: <199801291018.CAA11284@hub.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Busmastering code for IDE drives in 2.2.6?
In-Reply-To: <19980128185953.56562@pobox.com> from Brian Campbell at "Jan 28, 98 06:59:53 pm"
To: bac@sympatico.ca (Brian Campbell)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 02:18:52 -0800 (PST)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
From: sos@FreeBSD.ORG
Reply-to: sos@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG
X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe hackers"

In reply to Brian Campbell who wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 1998 at 08:33:14PM +0100, Søren Schmidt wrote:
> > In reply to Sascha Blank who wrote:
> > > with the big code merges into 2.2.5-STABLE over the last weeks, I wonder
> > > what the chances are that we will also see the IDE busmastering code
> > > incorporated into STABLE (and this way 2.2.6 as well). Or would doing so
> > > mean such a dramatic change to STABLE that it is held back for the
> > > 3.0-RELEASE?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> That's the easy answer.

No, its the right answer.

> It requires two files (/sys/pci/ide_pci.c and /sys/ide_pcireg.h) to be added,
> two files (/sys/i386/isa/wd.c /sys/i386/isa/wdreg.h) to be replaced, and
> a line to be changed in /sys/i386/conf/files.i386.
> 
> I've been running with it in 2.2-x since it was announced and it
> works just fine.  Hardly a dramatic change.  However, I've asked
> the same question before and met with the same disapproving glare.

Yes so do I, but its the first incarnation (which was build on 2.2),
and it lack all kind of error checks etc, ie it is NOT for general
use. The version in current has improved on that account, but still
not perfect, but morre changes has been made due to current diverging
from the -stable branch, so its not so easy, and it is not garantied
to work. It needs ALOT of testing before it _could_ go into -stable,
and that we dont have for 2.2.6.

						Søren