Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:35:55 +0100 (MET) From: Gerard Roudier <groudier@club-internet.fr> To: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, obrien@NUXI.com, "Chris D. Faulhaber" <jedgar@fxp.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC LINT Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.1000110002018.657A-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001091404380.14991-100000@beppo.feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > Hmmm... In fact this patch hasn't the expected effect :). I didn't prov= ide=20 > > a better one since nobody seems to need to configure both drivers. >=20 > Don't both drivers have to configured in the GENERIC case? Only the support for the C1010 requires both driver to be configured=20 in GENERIC since it is the kernel that will be used for installation. For now, my understanding of the situation is: 1) 4.0 has appropriate flags to deterministically know about the driver=20 the kernel will use for each 53c8xx chip when ncr and sym are configured. 2) next release is 4.0 3) 3.4 is out of the door without the sym driver. 4) It has been reported that the actual order drivers are probed relies on <arch>/conf/files order and this probably will not change in= =20 later 3.X kernels until 4.X will be preferred by users. If (4) is ok, then no need to go with a patch, in my opinion. If (4) is untrue, some tiny patch, similar to the one that had been proposed, applied to one of the driver should fit. If the sym driver has to be modified, this will not make problem. But a clear decision has to be taken, and I am waiting for this to occur. G=E9rard. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.95.1000110002018.657A-100000>