Actually, your statement about my code is so wrong that i'm going to
   reply to it again.

Actually, your statements are highly incorrect.

The last time we discussed this code was while you were writing it.
It was not, to any knowledge available to me at the time, publically
available anywhere; and indeed you didn't have enough details worked
out that I could reasonably believe that it was working at that point.

I asked a very specific question, relating to your model of probing
based on I/O addresses, and the fact that at least some devices don't
*have* an I/O address, and you have never explained how you made that
case work.

	   (a) you're a member of NetBSD's 'core group'.  If you're
	       that unfamiliar with the state of a certain port of NetBSD
	       which is partially in the source tree, [...]

Wrong answer.  It's not our responsibility to keep track of how a
port-master (or anyone else) is distributing `unofficial' code, even
if it *had* been available at the time.

	   (b) previously, when i'd presented what i specifically stated
	       was a "rough" notion of some of the changes that should
	       be made, you spent quite a bit of time nit-picking
	       unpolished details.  [...]

Again, wrong answer.  I asked you to solve a very specific case, which
is required for the i386 port, and as far as you've told me, I have no
reason to believe you've ever solved it.