[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: no ndis* at cardbus?
On Jul 4, 7:26am, Matthias Drochner wrote:
} jnemeth%victoria.tc.ca@localhost said:
} > Um CardBus PC Card (the correct name for a "cardbus card") is
} > defined by PCMCIA. PCMCIA also defines ExpressCard.
} Yes, this was a typo.
} PICMG is related though because they define CompactPCI and ATCA.
} > CardBus (note that the "B" is supposed to be capitalised) is
} > essentially hotswap PCI
} There are already 2 different PCI hotswap standards I know of,
} the one by PCISIG and CompactPCI hotswap by PICMG. I didn't
This is rather annoying. All PCI stuff should be defined by
PCISIG. Given how closely related CardBus and ExpressCard are to PCI,
PCMCIA should probably be rolled into PCISIG. I hope this CompactPCI
stuff only adds to the PCI standard and doesn't modify it.
} look at details (don't have the hardware anyway) but afaict
} they are completely independant, and more complex than what
} CardBus does - at least as far as the power switching process
} is concerned. (CardBus adds the CIS stuff instead.)
} ATCA will be different again. We should keep that modular.
} There is no reason to have any hotswap related code in
} a kernel for an embedded board. And we could load it as a module.
Given that hotswap stuff is going to be quite integral (i.e. have
to autoconfig a driver on insertion, have to delete the device on
removal, drivers have to deal with the device going away, etc.) I don't
see how hotswap code can be seperated out. And, apart from drivers
having to handle the situation of the device going away, I suspect it
wouldn't actually be that much code.
BTW, what benefit do you foresee ATCA providing? Are there any
NetBSD users that could really use it? Does any other Opensource OS
support it? I'm just trying to figure out if it is something we need
to be actively concerned about of if it something for the "nice to
} > It's on my project list to do something about this. Right now,
} > 16-bit PC Card (commonly known as "PCMCIA") is broken
} You mean the "fixed address" thing, or is there more? At least
} wdc@pcmcia works for me.
For me, this would be the primary thing. See PR/30284 and
PR/31245. However, based on what other people are saying, there are
much more serious problems.
There is also PR/32938 with a suggested fix based on information
found in "The PCMCIA Developer's Guide". Charles shot it down claiming
that the "PCMCIA spec" disagrees. Both documents are published by
PCMCIA, but the first is only a guide. The last entry on that PR was
on Oct. 29th, 2006. It didn't go very far.
}-- End of excerpt from Matthias Drochner
Main Index |
Thread Index |