Re: autoconf deferred processing

2013-10-22 Thread Christos Zoulas
In article <20131022205705.c0dc812...@ren.fdy2.co.uk>, Robert Swindells wrote: > >Can somebody explain how the deferred processing code in subr_autoconf.c >is supposed to work ? > >Looking at config_create_interruptthreads() it creates 8 threads all >of which seem to walk the same list and delete

autoconf deferred processing

2013-10-22 Thread Robert Swindells
Can somebody explain how the deferred processing code in subr_autoconf.c is supposed to work ? Looking at config_create_interruptthreads() it creates 8 threads all of which seem to walk the same list and delete elements from it. I'm getting crashes in i386 at startup and am trying to track down

Re: DIOCGDISCARDINFO and DIOCDISCARD

2013-10-22 Thread Matthias Drochner
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:31:39 -0400 Michael wrote: > Something related - how difficult would it be to support something > TRIM-ish on CompactFlash? Not that I have the faintest clue about ATA > in general, let alone the CF-specific extensions... The CF part should be easy to do. To be useful in p

Re: machfb MMIO versus SPARCle OFW

2013-10-22 Thread Julian Coleman
Hi, > well -- this doesn't help ddb or dropping to the prom directly > does it? Strangely, droppping to DDB or to the PROM from DDB works fine. It's just halt and reboot that don't work. Thanks, J PS. I didn't test a kernel witout DDB. -- My other computer also runs NetBSD/Sa

re: machfb MMIO versus SPARCle OFW

2013-10-22 Thread matthew green
> Not altering the BUS_CNTL register would seem easier. However, detach does > work if that's not possible. well -- this doesn't help ddb or dropping to the prom directly does it? i think a solution that leaves it working without any special detach needed is the best idea here. .mrg.

Re: machfb MMIO versus SPARCle OFW

2013-10-22 Thread Michael
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:50:43 +0100 Julian Coleman wrote: > > Eww. IIRC that's supposed to turn off the register block that lives in > > the upper 2KB of each half aperture, it didn't cause any problems with > > other other Sun or Apple mach64 OFW that I have here. Should really > > only be done w

Re: machfb MMIO versus SPARCle OFW

2013-10-22 Thread Julian Coleman
> Eww. IIRC that's supposed to turn off the register block that lives in > the upper 2KB of each half aperture, it didn't cause any problems with > other other Sun or Apple mach64 OFW that I have here. Should really > only be done when we have 8MB VRAM and the registers would overlap with > it. No

Re: machfb MMIO versus SPARCle OFW

2013-10-22 Thread Michael
Hello, On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:09:04 +0100 Julian Coleman wrote: > I tracked down why my SPARCle (SPARC laptop) appears to lock up on halt. > The cause is: > > http://mail-index.NetBSD.org/source-changes/2012/08/15/msg036624.html > > where we use the MMIO registers and alter the BUS_CNTL regi