From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 30 16:58:07 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 60C6816A588; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:58:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from www.cryptography.com (li-22.members.linode.com [64.5.53.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA0743D46; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:58:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from [10.0.0.34] (adsl-67-127-84-57.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [67.127.84.57]) by www.cryptography.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i7UGw5jn007068; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:58:05 -0700 Message-ID: <41335C9D.7040204@root.org> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:58:05 -0700 From: Nate Lawson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "M. Warner Losh" References: <412D1CE6.3050603@root.org> <20040825.171523.10602123.imp@bsdimp.com> <41335688.1060805@root.org> <20040830.104723.66164724.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20040830.104723.66164724.imp@bsdimp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: phk@phk.freebsd.dk cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: No more floppy drive X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:58:07 -0000 M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <41335688.1060805@root.org> > Nate Lawson writes: > : Basically, systems that have AML that claim 0x3f2-0x3f5,0x3f7 are > : correct and we need to only allocate those ports. In fact, we shouldn't > : allocate 0x3f0-0x3f1 unless on a PS/2 system. However, our floppy code > : assumes a base of 0x3f0 and that's why people report error messages like: > > Yes. That's right. I've understood that from early in the > conversations. However, we don't have much of a choice for systems > that tell us 0x3f0-0x3f5, which is what the traditional range for > these ports really is. This is a very recent development, and needs > some tcl to get right. I have some patches in the works, but they > aren't ready yet. Please be patient. Ok, glad you knew this. Thanks for working on it. -- Nate