Subject: Re: aix7xxx problems with negotiating "Ultra" speeds....
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Guenther Grau <Guenther.Grau@bk.bosch.de>
Date: 12/09/1998 23:37:28
long time no see :-)
Jason Thorpe wrote:
> 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.
This is a valid concern. I wonder if we, or better you and Matthew :-),
can talk to Justin and Ken about this. Maybe it is possible to find a
for this problem. Justin, Ken, what do you think about this?
> 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.
The other valid concern was about NetBSD's multi-architecture-support,
especially the amount of drivers which need to be ported. But, IMHO,
if we share the CAM code, we can share the load of writing/porting
much easier than today.
It would be great, if both, old and new drivers could coexist, though,
to ease the transition to CAM. Is this technically possible?