Subject: Re: ibus addresses [was Re: CVS commit: syssrc]
To: Simon Burge <simonb@netbsd.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
List: port-pmax
Date: 11/23/1999 15:05:03
In message <199911232249.JAA10497@balrog.supp.cpr.itg.telecom.com.au>
Simon Burge writes:

[addr locator for ibus]

>I'm curious about what this gains.  The 5100 only has a single `dc'...

Yes, but there are slots for 2 daughter cards.  daughtercards with dc
chips (4 more ports each) supposedly exist.

Mind you, i've never seen a 5100, but that's what the spec says.



>The autoconf output now has the addresses (which is nicer) but you also
>see a "pm ... not configured", which a 5100 can't have.  Here's the old:

>Is there a way not to be verbose about devices that aren't attached?

Yep.  Whoever merged the separate ibus vectors for the 3100 and 5100
needs to change the match functions for ibus attached devices,
so that devices only match on CPUs where they can exist.

(Or we could go back to theseparate attachments for 5100 onboard
devices and 3100 onboard devices.)


I planned the `ibus' as a bus for the 2100/3100/5100 mainboard
devices.  If someone wants to use "ibus" for other purposes -- e.g.,
sharing devices with CVAX Qbus machines -- we should change the name.

From what litle I understand about the VAX diagnostic processor, heck,
the 5400/5500 Qbus may acutally be on another board :)