bce - not working

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bce - not working

Mark Lumsden-2
The bce(4) driver was removed from i386 GENERIC by Theo a few months ago because
it can only access 1GB ram. My Dell Latitude D520 has 2GB RAM and sure enough the
driver did random things when I tried to use it back then. Ive looked at NetBSD
and they have an extra bus_dmatag_subregion() function for restricting the
memory range the driver accesses. Should this be implemented for OpenBSD?

-mark

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bce - not working

Ted Unangst-2
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Mark Lumsden <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The bce(4) driver was removed from i386 GENERIC by Theo a few months ago because
> it can only access 1GB ram. My Dell Latitude D520 has 2GB RAM and sure enough the
> driver did random things when I tried to use it back then. Ive looked at NetBSD
> and they have an extra bus_dmatag_subregion() function for restricting the
> memory range the driver accesses. Should this be implemented for OpenBSD?

I believe the consensus was that we should not pollute the source tree
to support one particular extra retarded device.  Rather, the driver
for that device is responsible for satisfying its strange needs.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bce - not working

Bob Beck-4
The driver itself could happily allocate it's own little crappy bounce
buffer.

On 1 February 2011 11:32, Ted Unangst <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Mark Lumsden <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> The bce(4) driver was removed from i386 GENERIC by Theo a few months ago
because
>> it can only access 1GB ram. My Dell Latitude D520 has 2GB RAM and sure
enough the
>> driver did random things when I tried to use it back then. Ive looked at
NetBSD
>> and they have an extra bus_dmatag_subregion() function for restricting the
>> memory range the driver accesses. Should this be implemented for OpenBSD?
>
> I believe the consensus was that we should not pollute the source tree
> to support one particular extra retarded device.  Rather, the driver
> for that device is responsible for satisfying its strange needs.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bce - not working

Theo de Raadt
In reply to this post by Mark Lumsden-2
If someone sends me a laptop containing a bce(4) chip, I will write
the code for it.

>The driver itself could happily allocate it's own little crappy bounce
>buffer.
>
>On 1 February 2011 11:32, Ted Unangst <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Mark Lumsden <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> The bce(4) driver was removed from i386 GENERIC by Theo a few months ago
>because
>>> it can only access 1GB ram. My Dell Latitude D520 has 2GB RAM and sure
>enough the
>>> driver did random things when I tried to use it back then. Ive looked at
>NetBSD
>>> and they have an extra bus_dmatag_subregion() function for restricting the
>>> memory range the driver accesses. Should this be implemented for OpenBSD?
>>
>> I believe the consensus was that we should not pollute the source tree
>> to support one particular extra retarded device.  Rather, the driver
>> for that device is responsible for satisfying its strange needs.