> 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...

It's pretty clear what I meant.

   > 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.

I pulled nothing `out of a hat', and I resent the insinuation that I'm
lying.  You specifically told me that you were probing for all devices
listed at a specific I/O range, and then choosing the one with the
highest priority.  I asked you what you were going to do about devices
that don't have I/O ports, and you steadfastly refused to answer.
Further on, you even said that you had talked with other people about
the design of your code, and specifically not talked to me about it.
This lack of communication is poor on your part.

   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.

The code *was not available to me*.  I've said that several times.


Anyway, I've wasted too much time on this already.  Consider this my
final (non-technical) comments on the subject.