>  > > but others don't. Given how many times people with disk-related problems
>>  > have been pointed to SBC kernels by list members, I strongly doubt
>>  > shipping
>>  > only a kernel with the ncrscsi driver is a wise move.
>>  >
>>  > Comments? If I see none, I shall send-pr the issue.
>>
>>  I'd second that, and I wondered this myself, as I've been installing on
>>  a disk which requires an SBC kernel.
>>
>>  It has, if I remember correctly, been like this since 1.5.1, and if
>>  there is no good reason for it, probably ought to be changed.
>
>
>I'd really like to know WHY there is a different driver for NCR and for
>SBC. Is there a compelling reason for not selecting a driver based upon
>the model of the Mac?

Yes, there is, unfortunately. As for model of Mac...that's mostly 
irrelevant. It seems that it is based more on the model of disk than 
the model of Mac...and the model of disk is unknown until after you 
have attached a driver to the (built-in) SCSI card. Drivers are 
attached, based on the identification of the card, & both of those 
drivers are slated to attach to the same cards, which is why both 
cannot really exist in a kernel at the same time.

>  I can say for certain that no Quadra that I have
>worked with (605, 610, 650, 700, 800, 950, Centrises, Quadra 660AV, 840AV)
>ever needed an SBC kernel, so perhaps they're appropriate for m68030 Macs,
>such as the IIsi and IIci.

Correct, '040 computers use esp driver, not ncr.

>
>So why not have a kernel with both drivers that selects the driver at boot
>time based on the model?

The model of disk drive isn't known when the SCSI host driver is attached.


As for make release...basically, you would need 2 separate kernel 
config files, one for SBC and one for NCR. You would need make 
release to create a kernel from each config file.

Mike
Bikers don't *DO* taglines.