Subject: Re: Problems with the wm driver
To: Kurt Schreiner <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/22/2005 11:28:39
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 06:21:59PM +0200, Kurt Schreiner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 09:00:16AM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > [...schnipp...]
> > =20
> > Well, they are pci1 device 1 function 0, pci2 device 1 function 0, pci2=
> > device 1 function 1, and pci3 device 1 function 0. Why, without wiring =
> > motherboard down, would they be named anything differently? :-)
> Ok, they shouldn't... As I said, just some "feeling" that there may be
> a problem w/ ordering caused perhaps by wrong pci-bus- or interrupt
> assingment, as I've not come across such an allocation scheme yet...
The manufacturer probably didn't care. And they started the system up &=20
installed windows before shipping, so under Windows the naming probably=20
> > > I've no real data to back up what I call natural order, yust a gut
> > > feeling.
> > I looked at the other post, and they were in the same order.
> OK, I stand corrected, will look closer next time.
> Sorry for the noise and for not beeing of any help, will shut up now ;-)
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be that grumpy. Please, keep asking questions.=
The only bad question is the one unasked.
You actually did help. I didn't notice that the wm's were in the "wrong"=20
order until your note. And I suspect that Martti hadn't noticed. Thus the=
"wm2" problems he's having are with the second add-in port, not the first.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----