On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, S?ren Schmidt wrote:
> It seems Robert Nordier wrote:
> > OK, I'll add it to the bootblocks.
> >
> > Incidentally, while I'm in there and thinking about it, I'd quite
> > like to fix the boot code to boot from LS-120 drives at the same
> > time. So if anyone has one of these, and wouldn't mind spending
> > some time running a few bits of test code, I'd appreciate it.
>
> I have a ZIP if that can help you ??
>
> > > > However, I'd *still* expect it to pass a major# of 0 rather than
> > > > 30. Why? Because a 2.0 kernel knows only 0. And if a 5.0 kernel
> > > > knows only 30, it is -- at least -- in a position to know what
> > > > 0 meant, and simply substitute one for the other (under the
> > > > influence of a kernel configuration option, if necessary).
> > >
> > > Hmm, wd should give 0 and ad should give 30, no AI please :)
> >
> > I wasn't actually thinking at all along the lines of "smart" code
> > at all:
> >
> > #ifdef FORCE_FOO
> > if (foo == 0)
> > foo = 30;
> > #endif
>
> Well, that breaks somewhere else, as the mount code is clever enough
> to look at the name of the driver in this case "ad" which doesn't
> match the specified #0 ie "wd".
> I kindof tried this by having my driver put itself in both the
> wd & ad majors in the table, but that doesn't work, because the mount
> stuff gets confused on the root name somehow, and fails to mount
> root because the names dont match...
>
> > AFAICS, adopting the separate "wd" and "ad" route entails the
> > following:
> >
> > Update your bootblocks.
> > Add a /boot.config statement like "0:ad(0,a)" to make use
> > of the driver the default.
> > Failure to boot if you inadvertently specify wd out of habit,
> > or if you specify ad when booting an earlier system.
> >
> > So we're introducing three points with good potential for failure.
>
> Well, what else can we do as long as we potentially need both
> drivers in the kernel. I'm pretty sure that if I kill of wd.c
> et all, there will be screams of bloody murder again...
> been there done that :)
Well, since the new ATA doesn't work with my LS-120 yet nor support DMA...
;) I want to see the LS-120 working, so where would I send it to if you were
to work on its driver? :)
>
> > In contrast, the kernel configuration route requires commenting
> > or uncommenting a single statement.
>
> But that doesn't work, at least as the mount code behaves now.
>
> At any rate, any solution that makes it possible to boot with
> a new driver without me having to call it "wd" something all
> over the place is acceptable to me...
>
> -S?ren
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
>
Brian Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___
gr...@unixhelp.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
http://www.freebsd.org/ _ __ ___ ____ | _ \__ \ |) |
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ ___ ____ _____ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
