From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 21 01:24:50 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C7316A4D4; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:24:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from spider.deepcore.dk (cpe.atm2-0-53484.0x50a6c9a6.abnxx9.customer.tele.dk [80.166.201.166]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F0043FCB; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:24:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sos@spider.deepcore.dk) Received: from spider.deepcore.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spider.deepcore.dk (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAL9NEEQ084445; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:23:14 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from sos@spider.deepcore.dk) Received: (from sos@localhost) by spider.deepcore.dk (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAL9NEjH084444; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:23:14 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from sos) From: Soren Schmidt Message-Id: <200311210923.hAL9NEjH084444@spider.deepcore.dk> In-Reply-To: To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:23:13 +0100 (CET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99f (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-mail-scanned: by DeepCore Virus & Spam killer v1.3 cc: sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG cc: sos@FreeBSD.ORG cc: Thomas Moestl cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: ultra5/cmd646 hang X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:24:51 -0000 It seems Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Soren Schmidt writes: > > This all sounds screwed somehow, I've just upgraded my alpha to the > > latest -current and there the '646 works just fine as is... > > I've never been able to use ATA disks in my PWS600au... I haven't > tried with atang, but it seems to me that different systems with > apparently similar chips may actually be broken in entirely different > ways. Hmm, the only explanation I can give is that !x86 vendors take different liberties when they do their BIOS/firmware support for the ATA chips. It also seem that in some cases they dont even do the HW right :( -Søren