On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 02:30:48PM -0500, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:37:19 -0800, Derek Peschel wrote:

> `usb-kbd-ihandle (14733). I wonder... can we just try both
> `usb-kbd-ihandle and `usb-kbd-ihandles in succession without
> breaking anything?

Probably.  The best thing might be to use the code from 1.74.2.1 that calls
`usb-kbd-ihandle, and the code from 1.86 that calls `usb-kbd-ihandles.
That's because `usb-kbd-ihandle returns one item and `usb-kbd-ihandles
returns one or more.  So you can't just change the method name and keep
the surrounding code the same.

> > * Can 1.86 be made to work with both method names?  Would it have to get
> >   the OF version, or is there a way to ask OF directly if a method exists?
> >   Note, ' is not what I had in mind since it prints an error if the method
> >   doesn't exist.  I already see one error from OF (because of the call to
> >   `usb-kbd-ihandle) and I would rather not see more.
> 
> A clean way to retrieve the OF version that works on all OF versions
> would make a *lot* of our "works with this OF, not with this other"
> issues go away. I don't think there is one. I find more and more

Oh.

Does OF have a null device?  I thought of redirecting the output, using
' and then redirecting the output back.  I think the stack gets cleared
by this ploy, though.  Obviously it wasn't my first choice, but if OF
really is uncooperative, it may be the only one.

> > * When I run halt from the shell, I assume I'm supposed to be dumped back
> >   to an OF prompt.  I do get the prompt but I can't type.  Does machdep.c
> >   need to set standard input back to OF's on shutdown (just as it sets it
> >   away from OF's on startup)?
> 
> Would this be PR 14732? (Also Lennart's.) Or, at least, related with
> a similar fix? (He's talking about ddb, you're talking about a
> halted system, but both need to reenable things properly for the
> console.)

I'll look at the PR.

-- Derek