Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:45:12 +0900 (JST) From: Naoki Hamada <nao@sbl.cl.nec.co.jp> To: bde@zeta.org.au Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, j@ida.interface-business.de Subject: Re: ep0 in GENERIC Message-ID: <199702180545.OAA06179@sirius.sbl.cl.nec.co.jp> In-Reply-To: Bruce Evans's message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:48:37 %2B1100" <199702180148.MAA20191@godzilla.zeta.org.au> References: <199702180148.MAA20191@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce wrote: >>Why don't we use the following config line for ep0 (3C509)? >>device ep0 at isa? port ? net irq ? vector epintr >Because the probe doesn't honour conflicts and is invasive. Sorry, I cannot figure out what you meant by this. Can you expand on it? >>The autoprobing seems to work, and it's as invasive as not using >>autoprobing since it happens by reading the EEPROM via a fixed port >>address (which is done anyway as long as at least one ep device is >No, the autoprobing isn't done if a previous driver finds something >at 0x300, because the ep0 address conflicts so ep0 isn't probed. The >probes are done in non-alphabetical order to increase the chance of >avoiding invasive probes like ep0's. > >Bruce As far as I know, the autoprobing IS done whatever previous drivers finds on whichever port. - nao
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702180545.OAA06179>