> The last time we discussed this code was while you were writing it.

Only in the sense that i've been "writing it" for the better part of a
year now...


> 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.

what does "probing based on I/O addresses" mean?  _certainly_ i never
said that, since i have no idea what you mean by it.

There's definitely no requirement in my code that devices have I/O
addresses.  I dunno what hat you pulled _that_ out of.


> 	   (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.

Even if:
	(1) it's necessary to make the port run at all,
	(2) most of the port is in the source tree,
	(3) the code in question is distributed _only_ from
	    ftp.netbsd.org?

Of course, if you know it's necessary for NetBSD/Alpha, and you don't
bother to look at the NetBSD/Alpha sources, then you still are missing
something.


> 	   (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.

You've pulled a weird case -- that i don't recall talking to you
about, EVER, and which i certainly don't disallow in my code -- out of
your hat...



chris