--Signature_Tue__9_Aug_2005_23_12_34_-0400_NT64j+Y_aShoiZZk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

> > Hmm, the card apparently has its own PCI bridge, I remember some
> > people having trouble with these.
> >=20
> > So - please try a -current kernel, I'll build one for you if you
> > don't want to go through the trouble of rolling your own. =20
> > I /think/ the code that maps the OF device name to NetBSD's may
> > choke on your boot path:
> > /pci@1f,0/pci@1/pci@3/SUNW,isptwo@4/sd@3,0:a/netbsd
> > three nested instances of pci aren't /that/ common after all and
> > macppc had a similar problem a while ago ( it didn't hang though,
> > just didn't use the right device )=20
>=20
> I do recall reading something to that effect. The commas, I believe?

Yes, something like that. Too long ago for me to remember detains
though, and it wasn't me who dealt with it ;)

> > Hmm, your CPU looks a bit odd too, I thought all UltraSPARC-IIi
> > modules for U5/U10 boxes with 300MHz or more had 2MB cache.
>=20
> AFAIR the 333MHz and 400MHz modules have 2M cache, the 270MHz, 360MHz=20
> and 440MHz (U10 only, unofficial in newer U5 boards?) have 256K.

that's my U10:
cpu0 at mainbus0: SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIi @ 440 MHz, version 0 FPU
cpu0: 32K instruction (32 b/l), 16K data (32 b/l), 2048K external (64
b/l) p
as far as I know the U5 and the U10 use the same mainboard?

> > Does the HME on the card work properly?
>=20
> Under Solaris, yes.

And NetBSD? Someone reported trouble with a quad hme a while ago, it's a
bit similar to your card, only it has 4 hmes behind the bridge.

> Actually one thing I noticed just after sending the last message and=20
> looking over the dmesg, was that hme0 and hme1 seem to have the same
> MAC address!

That's normal, the MAC address comes from the firmware on your
mainboard ( the last couple of numbers should be identical you your
host ID ). There's an option somewhere to make them use their local MAC
addresses though.

> The first being the onboard interface. I'm not sure if this would
> affect the SCSI bit of the card, but this certainly isn't right, is
> it?

No, it's right, and no it shouldn't cause any SCSI troubles. I'm only
asking because of troubles others had.

> I'll work on getting -current built sometime this week.

Thanks ;)

have fun
Michael

--Signature_Tue__9_Aug_2005_23_12_34_-0400_NT64j+Y_aShoiZZk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (NetBSD)

iQEVAwUBQvlwospnzkX8Yg2nAQImrAf7BvIkRK1tpQXPWsmQpl/CqzGADj3oiKNH
qwBVZySPbRHC1cfk8Q/dTieau7+wH1zwipnjk77XoF0kI/3Lw6gMUQgR+LvGL1KK
r33n7hptxV1ktbbYhPoIpnlU5hQnwvDLpkOFvL/BC4Kl8WJBFp6Dwg5bM/79IQ9Z
iuG85IvIewtbKS9s5z24aDJRGP1NwQDMcNZ4fy/eaizq8G9Lh5ejc21Lzwt2fKNX
e47+ROZ0IM44BWdm9wLxb+sBvy529jPOg86lsi9ozp1vkymJ83HHZYPRlLcyJGB7
4krYHgarNddhK8SpVJ+GoiMQ/Dxv9l2REP2GNYH10HM52aGck5SlVQ==
=7Ymh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Signature_Tue__9_Aug_2005_23_12_34_-0400_NT64j+Y_aShoiZZk--