These isa devs are already disabled and not particularly popular among
our users. affected: tcic, sea, wds, eg, el
Index: arch/i386/conf/GENERIC
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/i386/conf/GENERIC,v
retrieving revision 1.744
diff -u -p
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:20:27 -0400
> From: Ted Unangst
>
> These isa devs are already disabled and not particularly popular among
> our users. affected: tcic, sea, wds, eg, el
The reason these devices are disabled is probably that their probe
routines are destructive. So the fact that the
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:13, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:20:27 -0400
>> From: Ted Unangst
>>
>> These isa devs are already disabled and not particularly popular among
>> our users. affected: tcic, sea, wds, eg, el
>
> The reason these devices are disabled is probably that
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:13, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>>> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:20:27 -0400
>>> From: Ted Unangst
>>>
>>> These isa devs are already disabled and not particularly popular among
>>> our users. affected: tcic, sea, wds, eg, el
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:09:14AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:13, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:20:27 -0400
> >> From: Ted Unangst
> >>
> >> These isa devs are already disabled and not particularly popular among
> >> our users. affected: tcic, sea
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 14:26, Creamy wrote:
>> but I honestly question the utility of any of these ISA
>> network and SCSI drivers.
>
> Perhaps somebody who is new to coding might be able to learn something
> from them?
The last thing this world needs is more programmers who learned to
code by
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:09:14 -0400
> From: Ted Unangst
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:13, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:20:27 -0400
> >> From: Ted Unangst
> >>
> >> These isa devs are already disabled and not particularly popular among
> >> our users. affected: tcic,
Sorry, but I think there is some seriously strange reasoning going on here.
> It's not so much that we spend time maintaining the source, but I do
> spend time compiling it.
Err, don't you use a custom kernel configuration? Unless you're working
on those drivers, why are you compiling them in an
Penned by Ted Unangst on 20130326 8:09.14, we have:
| On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:13, Mark Kettenis wrote:
| >> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:20:27 -0400
| >> From: Ted Unangst
| >>
| >> These isa devs are already disabled and not particularly popular among
| >> our users. affected: tcic, sea, wds, e
> These isa devs are already disabled and not particularly popular among
> our users. affected: tcic, sea, wds, eg, el
No objection against removing them from kernel configs (or commenting
them out), but keep files.isa unchanged please.
On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Creamy wrote:
>> but I honestly question the utility of any of these ISA
>> network and SCSI drivers.
>
> Perhaps somebody who is new to coding might be able to learn something
> from them?
There is such a vast amount of code in the different BSD flavours
alone that
I really don't see the point of removing these from the tree. I just
don't see greater value from removal, vs retention.
Sure you can remove their compilation in GENERIC by #'ing them there.
That I can understand. But if you remove the lines, noone can ever
use them again because they won't kno
> I don't think maintaining these drivers is currently a huge burden on
> us. But decoupling them from the build will almost certainly lead to
> some degree of bitrot.
This 2nd sentence is the truth. At least when something is coupled to
the build, it might warn us of the unintended consequences
Todd T. Fries fries.net> writes:
> I'd wager a bet that I could make my sea(4) scsi adapter work more
> reliably than any variant of usb wi(4), so perhaps we should disable usb
> wi(4) to save you time building instead?
My 2 cents.
Nuke tcic0 *and* pcic*:
* searching archives bring dmesgs from
Alexey E. Suslikov gmail.com> writes:
> Not sure about ancient 3Com's, but they are Ethernet at
> least, in contract to Token-Ring device like tr*.
>
> Do we support Token-Ring?
Joystick driver?
> If I'm testing hardware support and such, I'm going to want to get
> thorough coverage of the drivers we build and purport to support.
Next time mail in your dmesg! :)
> I'd wager a bet that I could make my sea(4) scsi adapter work more
> reliably than any variant of usb wi(4), so perhaps we s
On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:06 PM, Creamy wrote:
>>> Looking to the future, when are we going to drop 486 support, anyway?
>>
>> Now, that's a more interesting thing ask.
>
> How much of the hardware survives now, anyway? I mean at least the old
> Vaxen were, (and are), maintainable. 486 motherboa
On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:11 PM, Creamy wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:50:40PM +0400, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>> Nobody in their right mind would have such a system as
>> mission critical infrastructure. :)
>
> What, like using a Honeywell 316 as a nuclear power station
> reactor temperature mon
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:50:40PM +0400, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> Nobody in their right mind would have such a system as
> mission critical infrastructure. :)
What, like using a Honeywell 316 as a nuclear power station
reactor temperature monitor in to the early 2000s, until it's
hard disk failed
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:00:39PM +0400, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Creamy wrote:
>
> >> but I honestly question the utility of any of these ISA
> >> network and SCSI drivers.
> >
> > Perhaps somebody who is new to coding might be able to learn something
> > from them
On 2013/03/26 18:06, Creamy wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:00:39PM +0400, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Creamy wrote:
> > > Looking to the future, when are we going to drop 486 support, anyway?
> >
> > Now, that's a more interesting thing ask.
>
> How much of the h
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:43:53AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2013/03/26 18:06, Creamy wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:00:39PM +0400, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Creamy wrote:
> > > > Looking to the future, when are we going to drop 486 support, anyway?
Hello all.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:01:34 +
Creamy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:43:53AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2013/03/26 18:06, Creamy wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:00:39PM +0400, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> > > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Creamy wrote:
> > >
Hi,
> Please, don't do this.
What exactly? You quoted my entire mail, but didn't narrow down exactly
which of my suggestions would cause problems for you.
> I've jumped from OpenBSD to NetBSD boat when SCSI driver were rewritten
> to the "new" version (between 3.1-stable and 3.2-stable), and my
On 03/27/2013 09:35 AM, Alexey G. Khramkov wrote:
Please, don't do this.
I've jumped from OpenBSD to NetBSD boat when SCSI driver were
rewritten to the "new" version (between 3.1-stable and 3.2-stable),
and my "very branded" HP NetServer with AIC-7770 (which can work on
IRQ 14 when primary I
> However, on a practical level, if we took the decision to kill 486 support,
> we could, in effect, loose 99% of the ISA-related code, as excluding a few
> specialised pieces of hardware, (which OpenBSD doesn't support, and probably
> never will), ISA pretty much died by the 586 era, (as did VL-bu
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:08:51PM -0700, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 03/27/2013 09:35 AM, Alexey G. Khramkov wrote:
> >Please, don't do this.
>
> >I've jumped from OpenBSD to NetBSD boat when SCSI driver were
> >rewritten to the "new" version (between 3.1-stable and 3.2-stable),
> >and my "very br
> Not sure about ancient 3Com's, but they are Ethernet at
> least, in contract to Token-Ring device like tr*.
>
> Do we support Token-Ring?
We used to, on TRopic boards, but since public documentation for TR
hardware amounts to zilch, and there is no interest in changing this
situation, it was ev
> In fact, to everybody else who is reading this, doesn't it just point out
> that 486 support is, effectively, already broken, (as I suspected),
> because the devices that typically go with machines of that era are
> suffering bit-rot in the tree?
Absolutely not. First, 80486 support is not broke
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Miod Vallat wrote:
>> Not sure about ancient 3Com's, but they are Ethernet at
>> least, in contract to Token-Ring device like tr*.
>>
>> Do we support Token-Ring?
>
> We used to, on TRopic boards, but since public documentation for TR
> hardware amounts to zilch,
> >> Do we support Token-Ring?
> >
> > We used to, on TRopic boards, but since public documentation for TR
> > hardware amounts to zilch, and there is no interest in changing this
> > situation, it was eventually removed from the tree to clear the way of
> > other changes.
>
> And with no TR stack
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:05:47PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > > In fact, to everybody else who is reading this, doesn't it just point out
> > > that 486 support is, effectively, already broken, (as I suspected),
> > > because the devices that typically go with machines of that era are
> > > su
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:05:47PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > In fact, to everybody else who is reading this, doesn't it just point out
> > that 486 support is, effectively, already broken, (as I suspected),
> > because the devices that typically go with machines of that era are
> > suffering bi
> Soekris NET4501 are still in use, and they are based upon 80486 cores.
> `Key' ISA devices such as wdc are still heavily tested as pcmcia or such
> attachments on i386 and non-i386 platforms. Other devices such as
> com(4), pckbc(4), still exist on many systems, even if they are no
> longer on ex
On 03/27/2013 01:01 PM, Creamy wrote:
Or, more realistically, perhaps you could just choose to maintain the
-patch branch of a particular version that was of interest to you. For
example, if we stopped supporting 486 in 6.0, by way of example, what
is to stop you taking 6.0 and maintaining a -p
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:14:20PM +, Creamy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:05:47PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > > In fact, to everybody else who is reading this, doesn't it just point out
> > > that 486 support is, effectively, already broken, (as I suspected),
> > > because the devices
> What you're suggesting is a small part of the ISA code in the tree.
I did not want to list all isa drivers which happen to be tested a few
times every year either.
> ...and note that I've been working on the pckbc code for the last
> couple of weeks, so I should be fully aware of it's existance
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Miod Vallat wrote:
>> >> Do we support Token-Ring?
>> >
>> > We used to, on TRopic boards, but since public documentation for TR
>> > hardware amounts to zilch, and there is no interest in changing this
>> > situation, it was eventually removed from the tree to cl
Creamy [cre...@nocrater.com] wrote:
>
> Miod, you seem like an all-right bloke, and I don't want to create
> bad feelings, but you're insulting me on a public mailing list,
> because I dare to bring up something you object to.
>
> Other people have been rude to me in private mail, because my view
Creamy [cre...@nocrater.com] wrote:
>
> So, you see, killing 486 support might be no advantage in itself, but it opens
> up possibilities further down the line, that won't exist all the time we're
> dragging all this old stuff along with us.
>
OpenBSD/i386 isn't likely to change major platform s
> Don't forget, though, this *is* open source. If the project officially
> drops support for anything you like, ultimately you are free to fork it.
It is. And we are the developers, and you are not. So put a sock in it.
> Really, this community has an attitude problem - and you *need*
> more developers, believe me, you shouldn't be trying to scare
> them away.
You're right. We need more developers.
What we don't need is more people who have the time to send 25
long opinionated rants to our mailing lists.
So pu
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:24:49 +
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> However, I would be glad if the 486 support was kept as I have many
> 486 systems that I would like to be able to use if I ever get around
> to porting the ethernet driver (which is open source).
Oops, just checked and they are 586 and t
On 03/27/2013 03:06 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
OpenBSD/i386 isn't likely to change major platform support any time
soon, if ever. The port for dropping legacy crap would be
OpenBSD/amd64. Now, look at its kernel config. You'll see, that was
already done. ta-da! I bought an old, high-end 80386 s
my thoughts inline...
On 03/26/13 05:20, Ted Unangst wrote:
> These isa devs are already disabled and not particularly popular among
> our users. affected: tcic, sea, wds, eg, el
>
> Index: arch/i386/conf/GENERIC
> ===
> RCS file: /
> > I did not want to list all isa drivers which happen to be tested a few
> > times every year either.
>
> OK, put it this way, there are at least some of the ISA drivers which
> people are not using on a regular basis, and they are broken as a result
> of that. Agree or not? We've *seen* examp
On 03/27/13 21:14, Creamy wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:05:47PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
Or are you just trolling for the sake of it?
I didn't expect that from you, frankly. Other people have been
rude to me off-list, but I thought you were above that.
You make some valid points, but
Nick Holland holland-consulting.net> writes:
> There is a lot of ISA stuff I'd object to removing from the kernel; none
> of this is it. I'm entirely ok with this stuff going...
How about this one?
ie0 at isa? port 0x360 iomem 0xd irq 7 # StarLAN and 3C507
Looking at sys/dev/isa/if_i
On 03/28/13 05:53, Alexey E. Suslikov wrote:
> Nick Holland holland-consulting.net> writes:
>
>> There is a lot of ISA stuff I'd object to removing from the kernel; none
>> of this is it. I'm entirely ok with this stuff going...
>
> How about this one?
>
> ie0 at isa? port 0x360 iomem 0xd0
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 05:46:30AM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
>
> You can't say in substance "it's a pity OpenBSD doesn't support the VAX
> 11/780 anymore" in one mail, "you guys really ought to ditch floppy
> installation media" in another, and expect people not to question your
> logic or your mo
On 28.03.2013, at 13:17, Daniel Bolgheroni wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 05:46:30AM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
>>
>> You can't say in substance "it's a pity OpenBSD doesn't support the VAX
>> 11/780 anymore" in one mail, "you guys really ought to ditch floppy
>> installation media" in another,
please everyone, move this to misc@ if you want to continue, or just drop the
thread.
52 matches
Mail list logo
