Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:42:39 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: marius@freebsd.org, gallatin@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, np@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NICs not in GENERIC Message-ID: <7274C496-567B-413D-AE7D-D4AB762CEE7E@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20120222092219.Horde.AvbvLpjmRSRPRKW7YuZBYu8@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <20120221155656.Horde.kkqxT5jmRSRPQ7C4wSPK1kA@webmail.leidinger.net> <1DA65887-49B6-446D-AC31-67B149A6C736@samsco.org> <20120222092219.Horde.AvbvLpjmRSRPRKW7YuZBYu8@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 22, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> (from Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:45:04 = -0700): >=20 >> On Feb 21, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >>=20 >>> Hi, >>>=20 >>> is there a specific reason that the following NICs are not (or shall = not be) in GENERIC (at least on i386)? >>> - if_cas: is compiled as a module, Sun hardware, non-x86 only? >>> - if_gem: is compiled as a module, Apple/Sun, non-x86 only? >>> - if_hme: is compiled as a module, Sun hardware, non-x86 only? >>=20 >> If these aren't for i386 hardware, then why would they need to be in = the i386 GENERIC profile? >=20 > I didn't told they aren't for i386 (Sun and Apple produce(d) x86 = hardware). If they would have been non-x86 drivers (I assume you've seen = the answer from Marius), the bug would have been that they are build as = modules on x86. >=20 Let it go. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7274C496-567B-413D-AE7D-D4AB762CEE7E>