On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 08:23:48PM -0400, Matt Dainty wrote:
> * Miod Vallat [2012-05-24 09:30:37]:
> > >We typically prefer shorter names. tcpcib might not be such a bad name.
> >
> > Come on. It obviously has to be "yapcib" since it's yet another pcib.
>
> Third time lucky, I've renamed the d
* Miod Vallat [2012-05-24 09:30:37]:
> >We typically prefer shorter names. tcpcib might not be such a bad name.
>
> Come on. It obviously has to be "yapcib" since it's yet another pcib.
Third time lucky, I've renamed the driver to tcpcib, (as much as I'd
love to call it yapcib ;-).
Theo sugges
We typically prefer shorter names. tcpcib might not be such a bad name.
Come on. It obviously has to be "yapcib" since it's yet another pcib.
Miod
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 08:47:52 -0400
> From: Matt Dainty
>
> * Mitja MuE>eniD
[2012-05-24 07:23:22]:
> > Works for me on net6501 on i386 GENERIC and GENERIC.MP
> >
> > after a succesfull watchdog fire:
> >
> > e600pcib0 at pci0 dev 31 function 0 "Intel E600 LPC" rev 0x00: watchdog,
> > reb
* Mitja MuE>eniD
[2012-05-24 07:23:22]:
> Works for me on net6501 on i386 GENERIC and GENERIC.MP
>
> after a succesfull watchdog fire:
>
> e600pcib0 at pci0 dev 31 function 0 "Intel E600 LPC" rev 0x00: watchdog,
> reboot on timeout
>
> It did fire a bit too early though, my watchdog period was
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 06:30:02 -0400
> From: Matt Dainty
>
> * Jonathan Gray [2012-05-24 01:23:28]:
> > As a general policy drivers do not have numbers in their name,
> > so it will have to be renamed.
>
> Yes, I got a couple of private mails stating the same, which explains
> why I hadn't s
4, 2012 7:23 AM
> To: Matt Dainty
> Cc: tech@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: Intel Atom E600 watchdog(4) support
>
> As a general policy drivers do not have numbers in their name,
> so it will have to be renamed.
>
> I'll have a look into trying it on a net6501 I have here
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 06:30:02AM -0400, Matt Dainty wrote:
>> * Jonathan Gray [2012-05-24 01:23:28]:
>> > As a general policy drivers do not have numbers in their name,
>> > so it will have to be renamed.
>>
>> Yes, I got a couple of priva
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 06:30:02AM -0400, Matt Dainty wrote:
> * Jonathan Gray [2012-05-24 01:23:28]:
> > As a general policy drivers do not have numbers in their name,
> > so it will have to be renamed.
>
> Yes, I got a couple of private mails stating the same, which explains
> why I hadn't seen
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Matt Dainty wrote:
> * Jonathan Gray [2012-05-24 01:23:28]:
>> As a general policy drivers do not have numbers in their name,
>> so it will have to be renamed.
>
> Yes, I got a couple of private mails stating the same, which explains
> why I hadn't seen any other
* Jonathan Gray [2012-05-24 01:23:28]:
> As a general policy drivers do not have numbers in their name,
> so it will have to be renamed.
Yes, I got a couple of private mails stating the same, which explains
why I hadn't seen any others. Anyway, Mike Belopuhov suggested pchpcib
as an alternative n
As a general policy drivers do not have numbers in their name,
so it will have to be renamed.
I'll have a look into trying it on a net6501 I have here with i386.
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 04:52:03PM -0400, Matt Dainty wrote:
> Attached are some patches that add support for the watchdog device on
>
Attached are some patches that add support for the watchdog device on
boards based on the Intel Atom E600 series such as the Soekris net6501.
Based on existing drivers such as amdpcib(4), ichpcib(4) and ichwdt(4)
I've created an e600pcib(4) to override the standard pcib(4) which can
then access th
13 matches
Mail list logo
