From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jan 27 12:51:56 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (c228380-a.sfmissn1.sfba.home.com [24.20.90.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C0037B404 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:51:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0RKpax01005; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:51:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200101272051.f0RKpax01005@mass.dis.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Richard Hodges Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NEWBUS: multiple calls needed? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:02:50 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:51:36 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > The memory areas "appear" to be fixed relative to each other: > mem1 == base + 0x000000 (size==0x200000) > mem2 == base + 0x201000 (size==0x000100) > mem3 == base + 0x203000 (size==0x000400) > > So of course, it is tempting to wonder whether it is really neccessary > to allocate three newbus entities for them. On the other hand, I have > to believe that the BIOS has already set the base and sizes of these > areas, and it would be a really bad idea to pretend that they are a > single (say 3-meg) resource. Just because *your* BIOS puts them there doesn't mean that another one won't put them somewhere else. 8) -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message