On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 09:44:49AM -0700, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 09:28:46AM -0700, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
> >> On 9/20/06, Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Here's another demo that indicates that sparc64 doesn't work
> >> >properly. In this case it's a CONS_SETKBD ioctl which is used
> >> >by kbdcontrol(8). I "kldload vkbd" and make sure two vkbd
> >> >instances exist, /dev/vkbdctl0 and /dev/vkbdctl1.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> actually, i just tracked this down as part of my work on pr
> >> sparc64/96798. there are few problems mentioned in this pr. kbdcontrol
> >> -k not working is just one of them.
> >>
> >> basically, kb_index is wrong, and, in my case, is always 0. which
> >> defaults to first keyboard (i.e. subkbd(4)). that is why i can not use
> >> kbdcontrol -k to switch between sunkbd(4) and, say, ukbd(4).
> >>
> >Yes, this is the endianness bug we were talking about.
> >Hold on, the fix is almost ready. :-)
>
> sure, btw i think CONS_SETKBD is easy. nothing seems to calling it
> from the kernel, so we could (intptr_t *) cast it and it should just
> work. i really want to change it to
>
> #define CONS_SETKBD _IOW('c', 110, int)
>
Yes, it would break both binary and source API compatibility. No
we cannot do it.> because i officially hate _IO() now :) but i'm not sure if this breaks > binary compatibility. > > me makes a mental note to never ever use _IO() anymore. > I fully share your sentiments. :-) Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer
pgpeCmZN3aCAy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
