From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Sep 14 03:20:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA04167 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 03:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usr06.primenet.com (tlambert@usr06.primenet.com [206.165.6.206]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA04159 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 03:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA15165; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 03:19:57 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199709141019.DAA15165@usr06.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Do *you* have problems with floppies? To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 10:19:57 +0000 (GMT) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19970914082715.NY17691@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Sep 14, 97 08:27:15 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > The driver already does what little chip detection is possible! > > But it does it wrong. Van Gilluwe (at least the first version) is > wrong. The Linux driver seems more correct. I've never fixed this > bug, since detecting the chip version is only important once we start > to support 2.88 MB floppies. Starting to support this requires a > major overhaul of the driver, since extending the existing one simply > sucks. (I've tried it.) OK. I grant the point (having recently looked at the Linux code); the hardware detect for the 2.88 is rather clever. I agree that simply stuffing a new table entry is not sufficient for 2.88. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.