From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 18 20:30:19 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A1C16A4CE; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:30:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from anuket.mj.niksun.com (gwnew.niksun.com [65.115.46.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0498B43D31; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:30:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jkim@niksun.com) Received: from [10.70.0.244] (daemon.mj.niksun.com [10.70.0.244]) by anuket.mj.niksun.com (8.13.1/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j2IKUEsn048175; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:30:15 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jkim@niksun.com) From: Jung-uk Kim Organization: Niksun, Inc. To: cvs-src@freebsd.org, obrien@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:30:12 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <200503162023.j2GKNWnJ099551@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050317121651.N72560@delplex.bde.org> <20050318201540.GF54333@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20050318201540.GF54333@dragon.NUXI.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200503181530.12815.jkim@niksun.com> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.83/773/Fri Mar 18 07:56:08 2005 on anuket.mj.niksun.com X-Virus-Status: Clean cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: Pawel Jakub Dawidek cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: Bruce Evans Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:30:19 -0000 On Friday 18 March 2005 03:15 pm, David O'Brien wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:37:15PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > > Are the comments on precedence even correct? > > Yes. > > > I think precedence according to ordering in the config file > > hasn't worked for many years. PCI devices may (should) have > > precedence over ISA ones, but that is a general property and > > should be expressed better. > > There are both PCI lnc and pcn devices. lnc and pcn can both > attempt to attach to the same device -- we have code that tries to > get the two drivers to live piecefully side-by-side. Why can't we just remove if_lnc_pci.c? Just a thought... Jung-uk Kim