On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Paul Goyette wrote:

> > Any ideas what's wrong?
> 
> Yup - the IIfx is an unsupported machine!  Due to many differences in the
> way the IIfx works (special IOPs to handle IO, different scsi, different
> adb, etc.) the IIfx is probably not going to be supported for a long time.
 As I understand it, the big reason it's not supported is because none of
the people who know anything about the internals of the kernel have access
to a IIfx.  If, in fact, as much of the IIfx's custom stuff is built into
the Q900/950 as I think, there's a good chance that when those systems are
supported, the IIfx would at least be able to do RAM-based miniroot
testing.  As it is, the problem is that, since adb doesn't work, you can't
exactly use the system stand-alone, and since the serial ports don't work,
serial console is also impossible.  By the way, whatever happened to the
idea of borrowing the DMA serial drivers from the Mach Kernel?  Is that,
by any chance, the same DMA serial hardware?

Later,

 /---------------------------------------------------------------------\
|David A. Gatwood             And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,  |
|davagatw@mars.utm.edu      Went home and put a bullet through his head.|
|dgatwood@globegate.utm.edu          --Edwin Arlington Robinson         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|http://globegate.utm.edu                  http://www.utm.edu/~davagatw |
|http://mars.utm.edu/~davagatw             http://www.nyx.net/~dgatwood |
 \---------------------------------------------------------------------/