Subject: Re: aix7xxx problems with negotiating "Ultra" speeds....
To: Guenther Grau <Guenther.Grau@bk.bosch.de>
From: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 12/09/1998 14:12:17
On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 22:22:45 +0100
Guenther Grau <Guenther.Grau@bk.bosch.de> wrote:
> o easier sharing drivers between FreeBSD and NetBSD
> o same APIs in FreeBSD/NetBSD
> o convergence of code between FreeBSD/NetBSD
> FreeBSD/NetBSD shouldn't be trying to be just different. Instead we
> try to work hand in hand, as much as possible.
> And to some other mails concerning this topic:
> Please don't bring up any arguments about who opposed the integration
> of CAM when and why. This won't help. Things happened in the past the
> way they happened. I found a nice quote on a web site which explains
> best what we should do, IMHO:
> Solve problems rather than assign blame.
I agree, and there ARE a lot of problems with the CAM code. The one
that jumps to mind immediately is its autoconfiguration model. There is
a lot of machinery in Justin's CAM code to handle e.g. cloning devices,
which our autoconfiguration already supports in a generic way.
There is also the issue of having a separate "passthru" node for devices
on the bus. What is the rationale for this? Let's say I'm an application
writer, and I want to send arbitrary commands to "cd0". I have to hunt
to find the passthru node (which may be "pass42") to correspond to my
device. Seems unnecessary.
...there's one, anyhow.
Jason R. Thorpe firstname.lastname@example.org
NASA Ames Research Center Home: +1 408 866 1912
NAS: M/S 258-5 Work: +1 650 604 0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035 Pager: +1 650 940 5942