From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jun 15 07:32:41 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA27073 for current-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 07:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA27053 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 07:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sax.sax.de by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with ESMTP id QAA07280; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 16:31:20 +0200 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id QAA10771; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 16:31:20 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.7.5/8.6.9) id QAA03774; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 16:27:28 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199606151427.QAA03774@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: 6/14/96 kernel won't boot To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 16:27:27 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, bde@zeta.org.au, davidg@Root.COM, jkh@time.cdrom.com Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: <199606151358.XAA14170@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from Bruce Evans at "Jun 15, 96 11:58:44 pm" X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL17 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Bruce Evans wrote: > At least one keyboard requires about 250 ms. This seems excessive > already so I was going to try 1000 ms maximum. It wouldn't hurt to > change the DELAY(10)'s to DELAY(1000)'s and reduce the counts > proportionally, but this is only easy in part of the reset code - > there are some DELAY(10)'s in kbd_wait(), and it's more important > for the delays to be right in the main code. Hmm, shouldn't they be at least DELAY(20)'s or so? I suspect one of the reasons why some of the keyboards broke with the old code (which was my main reason to change it) is that the new i586+ machines are too fast so the assumed overhead for small DELAY's turned almost into nop's. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)