On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Anders Magnusson wrote:

> > And then the disks can be either at hsc0 or uq0, and you can move them
> > without problems.
> >
> So can you do with NetBSD also, since a few years back.
> ra0	at mscpbus? drive?
> ra1	at mscpbus? drive?
> and so on...

You are right. But I thought the actual code was still pretty much mixed
up, and didn't really make the distinction between the class and the port
(to use DEC speak). If the current mscp driver really just implements
mscpbus on any underlying driver, then we are indeed in a good position.
It's just that I thought that the actual code was still mixing it freely.

> > > Yes. NetBSD has already MSCP drivers. But guessing a bus protocol on
> > > bais of a device driver is somewhat painful. Also guessing is no good
> > > bais for new code.
> > 
> > True. And also, the NetBSD RA support have some bug in it, along with
> > being very much tied to the UDA50/KDA50 right now.
> > 
> Bugs, probally, but the MSCP code should fit as well for speaking over
> CI or DSSI or whatever and not be tied to something special below. That
> was one of the reasons that I rewrote much of that code.

Hmmm, I have not noticed that much of a change, or was that rewrite
very long ago?

If I put it this way, will the mscp driver be able to speak to any
control-driver (port driver in DEC speak) without change? A future CI
driver, for instance?

	Johnny

Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@update.uu.se           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol