From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 11 04:04:07 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DCE516A4CE for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:04:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712E843D1D for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:04:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301:200:92ff:fe9b:20e7]) (authenticated bits=0) i1BC3urQ022554 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:04:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301::12]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1BC0huL024848 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:00:45 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1BC0hc5027110; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:00:43 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i1BC0gY5027109; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:00:42 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:00:42 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: Tom@Parquette.name Message-ID: <20040211120041.GB44313@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <2d49752d9a09.2d9a092d4975@nyroc.rr.com> <20040211021238.GY44313@cicely12.cicely.de> <4029A6B3.9040104@twcny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4029A6B3.9040104@twcny.rr.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.2-CURRENT alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.61 X-Spam-Report: * -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on cicely5.cicely.de cc: current@freebsd.org cc: ticso@cicely.de cc: bcsfd204@twcny.rr.com Subject: Re: Missing XL0 and USB printer after upgrade (WORKAROUND) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:04:07 -0000 On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 10:51:15PM -0500, Tom Parquette wrote: > Bernd Walter wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 04:22:39PM -0500, bcsfd204@twcny.rr.com wrote: > > > >>I removed miibus_load="YES" and added if_xl_load="YES" and I appear to > >>have a workaround for the network problem. I have not performed any > >>exaustive tests but the errors in DHCP and samba at boot time seem to > >>have disappeared. > >>The USB printer problem remains. But one thing at a time. :-) > > > > > >Not surprising - your kernel has neither the xl driver nor the driver > >for your usb controler. > I'm afraid I do not follow... The kernel config file has both the > device xl and the device ulpt lines. ulpt is not your USB controller - it's the driver for a device atached to an controller, but your kernel has none. > >At least the device probing lists them and can't find a matching driver. > >Check kldstat -v output to verify. > kldstat -v indicated usb was there but ulpt was not. For grins, I > loaded ulpt.ko and it showed up in the kldstat display. I'm going to > change loader.conf.local for usb and ulpt and see what happens but I'm > going to wait until tomorrow (I want to let my overnight cron scripts > catch up from being off the air for several days.) Are you absolutely shure that the kernel was compiled with the config file you've check for xl and ulpt existence? At least kldstat undoubtly showed that the kernel you have booted is without! > >PS: Please don't start a new thread for each mail on that issue. > Sorry... > > > > Maybe I'm missing the point but I did not see anything that told me > there was going to be a change in the way this acted when I came up to > 5.2-C. If I'm missing the something, I would appreciate someone helping > me understand what is going on... There's is no such change. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de ticso@bwct.de info@bwct.de