keyboard for a blade
hi, I have this IBM/Intel BladeCenter, and i can't get the console keyboard to work. I tried kbdcontrol -k kbd1 but failed, neither kbdcontrol -k kbd2 worked. Somehow the keyboard (USB/PS2) is rerouted, but gets lost to freebsd, btw, im running current, since on stable the bge doesn't work. The dmesg: ... ohci0: [GIANT-LOCKED] usb0: OHCI version 1.0, legacy support usb0: SMM does not respond, resetting usb0: on ohci0 usb0: USB revision 1.0 uhub0: (0x1166) OHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub0: 4 ports with 4 removable, self powered uhub1: Cypress Semiconductor 4 Port Hub, class 9/0, rev 1.10/0.01, addr 2 uhub1: 4 ports with 4 removable, bus powered ukbd0: IBM PPC I/F, rev 1.10/0.01, addr 3, iclass 3/1 kbd1 at ukbd0 ums0: IBM PPC I/F, rev 1.10/0.01, addr 3, iclass 3/0 ums0: X report 0x0002 not supported device_attach: ums0 attach returned 6 ukbd1: IBM HIDK/M, rev 1.10/0.01, addr 4, iclass 3/1 kbd2 at ukbd1 ums0: IBM HIDK/M, rev 1.10/0.01, addr 4, iclass 3/1 ums0: 3 buttons and Z dir. Any help? Thanks, danny ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: keyboard for a blade
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 12:04:45PM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote: > Somehow the keyboard (USB/PS2) is rerouted, but gets lost to freebsd, > btw, im running current, since on stable the bge doesn't work. If there's no PS/2 keyboard attached at boot time, FBSD will unload the atkbd driver to a give a change to the driver for a USB keyboard and (rather infuriatingly for me) won't allow re-connection of a PS/2 keyboard until you either kbdcontrol it (how, if you haven't got a working keyboard?) or power cycle the box. Similar problems occur if you also don't have a USB keyboard attached. Your blade centre is probably only "connecting" a keyboard when you need it, so you should treat it like a headless server. In your kernel config change this line: device atkbd0 at atkbdc? irq 1 flags 0x1 For this one: device atkbd0 at atkbdc? irq 1 This means that the PS/2 atkbd driver will be loaded even if a keyboard is not actually connected at boot time. If that doesn't fix it in your blade centre, then it's because it's providing a "USB keyboard" to the blade not a PS/2 keyboard, and I don't know how to fix that one because I've never had the problem. Hope that helps somehow. -- Paul Robinson http://www.iconoplex.co.uk/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: keyboard for a blade
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 12:04:45PM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote:
>
> > Somehow the keyboard (USB/PS2) is rerouted, but gets lost to freebsd,
> > btw, im running current, since on stable the bge doesn't work.
>
> If there's no PS/2 keyboard attached at boot time, FBSD will unload the
> atkbd driver to a give a change to the driver for a USB keyboard and (rather
> infuriatingly for me) won't allow re-connection of a PS/2 keyboard until you
> either kbdcontrol it (how, if you haven't got a working keyboard?) or power
> cycle the box. Similar problems occur if you also don't have a USB keyboard
> attached.
>
> Your blade centre is probably only "connecting" a keyboard when you need it,
> so you should treat it like a headless server. In your kernel config change
> this line:
>
> device atkbd0 at atkbdc? irq 1 flags 0x1
>
> For this one:
>
> device atkbd0 at atkbdc? irq 1
>
> This means that the PS/2 atkbd driver will be loaded even if a keyboard is
> not actually connected at boot time.
>
> If that doesn't fix it in your blade centre, then it's because it's
> providing a "USB keyboard" to the blade not a PS/2 keyboard, and I don't
> know how to fix that one because I've never had the problem.
>
> Hope that helps somehow.
Certainly!
im compiling a kernel now, will test asap.
On another box where i have similar problems, i added some lines to etc/rc.d/syscons:
...
syscons_start()
{
echo -n 'Configuring syscons:'
#
# keybord USB/PS2
#
case ${keyboard} in
[Nn][Oo] | '')
;;
*)
echo -n ' keybord'; kbdcontrol -k ${keyboard} < ${kbddev}
;;
esac
and now i have in my rc.conf:
keyboard=kbd1
I don't know if this is the correct way to do this - the keyboard magic is
beyond me :-)
danny
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: indent bugfix / added features
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:53:07PM -0500, Chip Norkus wrote:
#
# Hi all,
#
# I've been working on a major project, and decided to use indent to
# normalize the code a bit. In doing so I discovered a few deficencies in
# the stock FreeBSD (5.2-CURRENT) indent and decided to fix them, I
# thought these might be fairly common wishes (and one of them is a
# bugfix) and have attached a patch which does the following:
# * Adds an option to control tab use in output code (-ut and -nut)
# (This is in the GNU indent)
# * Adds an option to control brace placement after function declaration
# (-fbs and -nfbs). What this does, specifically, is allow you to have
# indent produce 'func(args..) {' instead of 'func(args..)\n{'. The old
# behavior is the default.
# * Fixes the indent bug when aligning variable names with an indentation
# level that is not a multiple of 8. This works for both the 'tab use'
# and 'no tab use' varieties of code output.
#
# I don't know if anyone would be interested in committing the bugfix (I
# believe it is correct) or added features, but I hope someone else finds
# this useful.
#
# -chip
I'm willing to commit this if you could demonstrate that it will not
produce different output in the default case than it does now. Say,
run the old an new versions against the FreeBSD src tree and make a diff
which should vanish apart from the bug-fixing effects. If you want to
make yourself known as a quality software engineer, do the same for
various sets of indent options :-)
Regards,
Jens
--
Jens Schweikhardt http://www.schweikhardt.net/
SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped)
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: indent bugfix / added features
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 04:07:40PM +0200, Jens Schweikhardt wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:53:07PM -0500, Chip Norkus wrote: ... > # normalize the code a bit. In doing so I discovered a few deficencies in > # the stock FreeBSD (5.2-CURRENT) indent and decided to fix them, I > # thought these might be fairly common wishes (and one of them is a > # bugfix) and have attached a patch which does the following: ... > # I don't know if anyone would be interested in committing the bugfix (I > # believe it is correct) or added features, but I hope someone else finds > # this useful. ... > I'm willing to commit this if you could demonstrate that it will not > produce different output in the default case than it does now. Say, > run the old an new versions against the FreeBSD src tree and make a diff > which should vanish apart from the bug-fixing effects. If you want to > make yourself known as a quality software engineer, do the same for > various sets of indent options :-) ?? this sounds like an absurd request, please... First, for a small patch like this you are much better off looking at the source code diffs rather than checking the output in a necessarily small set of test cases. Second, either you trust the author (in which case his statement "I believe is correct" is all you need), or you don't, in which case you'd have to check the patch yourself in whatever way you believe suitable. Either way, I don't see how the additional tests you are asking for would change your behaviour. cheers luigi ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: indent bugfix / added features
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 07:26:15AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: # On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 04:07:40PM +0200, Jens Schweikhardt wrote: # > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:53:07PM -0500, Chip Norkus wrote: # ... # > # normalize the code a bit. In doing so I discovered a few deficencies in # > # the stock FreeBSD (5.2-CURRENT) indent and decided to fix them, I # > # thought these might be fairly common wishes (and one of them is a # > # bugfix) and have attached a patch which does the following: # ... # > # I don't know if anyone would be interested in committing the bugfix (I # > # believe it is correct) or added features, but I hope someone else finds # > # this useful. # ... # > I'm willing to commit this if you could demonstrate that it will not # > produce different output in the default case than it does now. Say, # > run the old an new versions against the FreeBSD src tree and make a diff # > which should vanish apart from the bug-fixing effects. If you want to # > make yourself known as a quality software engineer, do the same for # > various sets of indent options :-) # # ?? this sounds like an absurd request, please... Sigh. A request for a little bit of QA and an emoticon as well and I'm criticised. I remember when I was not yet a committer that the better I could demonstrate that the code has no ill-effect the more chances some committer would bring it in the tree. # First, for a small patch like this you are much better off looking # at the source code diffs rather than checking the output in a # necessarily small set of test cases. I've looked at too many "innocous" patches that performed unexpectedly when run, to not let myself get away with this. Of course this may be because I'm not a good C programmer. # Second, either you trust the author (in which case his statement # "I believe is correct" is all you need), or you don't, in which # case you'd have to check the patch yourself in whatever way you # believe suitable. Either way, I don't see how the additional # tests you are asking for would change your behaviour. They'd improve my confidence of not having to backout someone else's patch. I was making my proposal on the premise that doing this test would not be very difficult or time consuming, and that the author, who apparently used indent a lot, would know better where potential pitfalls are (like option combos). If I can get any other committer's opinion saying "go ahead, commit", that's fine and I'll get to it ASAP. No hard feelings, Luigi :-) Regards, Jens -- Jens Schweikhardt http://www.schweikhardt.net/ SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: indent bugfix / added features
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 05:20:19PM +0200, Jens Schweikhardt wrote: ... > Sigh. A request for a little bit of QA and an emoticon as well and > I'm criticised. I remember when I was not yet a committer that the > better I could demonstrate that the code has no ill-effect the more > chances some committer would bring it in the tree. yeah but that's not a reason to give the same 'treatment' to other people. In the end, if you don't feel like taking the risk, you don't commit the patch and nobody will blame you. > I've looked at too many "innocous" patches that performed unexpectedly > when run, to not let myself get away with this. Of course this may be i am not trying to discuss general principles, but only this specific case. This is a very small patch and you can easily check it while you type/paste it in (if nothing else just for curiosity on what was the problem and how was it fixed). In the end, if you don't feel like taking the risk, you don't commit the patch; nobody will blame you. > No hard feelings, Luigi :-) nor on my side! I was just trying to make a point that we should not try to scare or annoy people who are so kind to contribute patches just because we don't have time to scrutinize them (which in the end is our responsibility, not theirs). I wouldn't have said a word if you had some actual comments/criticism on the contributed code. Even if they were only style issues (which we shouldn't even bother to criticise in these cases, as they can be trivially fixed at commit time). But asking for "more input or i won't even look at your code" (at least, that was the sense one could perceive) was a bit too much... cheers luigi ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: indent bugfix / added features
On Fri Jun 11, 2004; 04:07PM +0200 Jens Schweikhardt propagated the following: > > I'm willing to commit this if you could demonstrate that it will not > produce different output in the default case than it does now. Say, > run the old an new versions against the FreeBSD src tree and make a diff > which should vanish apart from the bug-fixing effects. If you want to > make yourself known as a quality software engineer, do the same for > various sets of indent options :-) > Hi, Thanks! I'll give it a run against a significant stack of code today and let you know. If anyone else is willing to test it out as well that would be extremely helpful. > Regards, > > Jens > -- > Jens Schweikhardt http://www.schweikhardt.net/ > SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped) -chip -- personal: chip norkus; renaissance hacker;[EMAIL PROTECTED] work: systems engineer @ lunarpages, inc.;[EMAIL PROTECTED] info: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for plan or keys; http://telekinesis.org ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
