Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 05:44:51 -0700 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com> Cc: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans), freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu Subject: Re: Problem with 2.0.5-Alpha and SMC Elite Ultra Message-ID: <199506011244.FAA02515@corbin.Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 Jun 95 05:39:03 CDT." <199506011039.FAA04243@bonkers.taronga.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >Wait a minute, how come the change? I would expect that the vast vast majority
>> >of cards out there are using soft settings, why not make the hard-settings
>> >folks have to go into -c and leave it for soft settings as the normal case
>> >(Which is the more common case afterall!)
>
>> Because the old behaviour was a bug. Configuring the irq to anything other
>> than "?" (-1 in userconfig) says that you really want that irq no matter
>> what the soft settings say. You get soft settings for the normal case by
>> saying what you mean ("irq ?") in the configuration.
>
>What he's saying is, I think, that the default boot kernel should use IRQ ?.
It can't - more than half of the if_ed supported cards don't have a soft
config capability, so changing it to ? would break them. ...besides, this would
still create a mystery for cards that do have soft config but are currently
configured for the hard setting. I like the new method better, but I do see
a need for better diagnostics at probe time to tell the user that the irq is
bogus. If it weren't for this being very difficult to get right for all cases,
it would have already been done.
My general sentiment is that this is the GENERIC kernel and that it's not a
big deal for people to set this in userconfig (-c) - it will be made
automatically permanent via 'dset' during the first normal bootup. ...or
people can build a custom kernel (they should anyway).
-DG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506011244.FAA02515>