Re: 3.4-beta on B132L and E55 / PCI support

Making, drinking tea and reading an opus magnum from Jochen Kunz:
[Charset ISO-8859-15 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> On 2003.09.16 10:37 Michael Shalayeff wrote:
> 
> > it is on the ftp.usa . i suggest you contact the mirror maintainer
> > you have downloaded the snapshot from.
> To be onest, I don't know what mirror I used but definedly not .usa. I 
> must have been a German or at least an European mirror. 

then i guess contacting the maintainer should clear up the problem.

> > > BTW: Why did the kernel use the old Sun rarp/bootparamd method?
> > > Even the boot ROM in the 715/100XC supported dhcp/bootp.
> > you are confused.
> > bootp/tftp is used by the prom to load the kernel.
> > rarpd/bootparam are used to configure root on nfs
> I am not confused, even if I sond like that. ;-)
> I very well relized that the PROM used bootp/tftp to load the kernel. 
> But the kernel used rarp/bootparam. Why did the kernel use a different 
> method like the bootrom? Why did the kernel not use bootp/dhcp? On 

kernel does not use bootprom.

> other architectures (PReP and CHRP e.g.) and other OSes (NetBSD) the 
> PROM and kernel use the same protocols. That way you don't have to 
> configure two different boot setups and keep them in sync. 

you do not need any of the rarpd/bootparams configured to perform an
ftp or http installation -- only to run diskless.

> [Dino / PCI support]
> > this code should come after 3.4 is out as it did not
> > make it on time for 3.4 w/ support in dc(4) and siop(4).
> Seams like I have to learn more about OpenBSD release engeneering. I 
> had a look at the current sources today, checked out via anonacvs. 
> There was an empty hppa/pci directory. So it looked to me like there is 
> nobody working on it. 

please do not tell me what am i not working on.

> > it is not listed as supported and thus is not supported.
> Well. Web pages tend to be outdated and there is written "The following 
> systems may eventually work:[...]HP 9000 E-Class" I thought that the 
> machine may be similar enough to some already supported machine to get 
> a bit more out of it. So I gave it a try. 

no they are not outdated. the lag is measured in days not years.

> > i'd say support for those machines is kinda low-priority
> > since they contain those funky hp-pb modules that we
> > most likely will never support anyway.
> Sad. Very sad. It is such a nice machine.

imho. it's an ugly machine.

cu

-- 
    paranoic mickey       (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)