On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Steve Woodford wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Brian Ginsbach wrote:
>
> > For now you can access my revamped NetBSD/mvme68k pages at
> > http://reality.sgi.com/ginsbach/netbsd/mvme68k.html.
>
> Looks pretty neat. Do we need permission from Motorola to use
> their logos?

I debated about this.  I have taken them off for now.  Maybe someone
out there knows, like David Brownlee.  Do we have permission to
use the other logos (Intel, Cyrix, AMD) on other ports pages?  I
suppose that we can ask Motorola.  They do have a copyright page
and a contact page.  Since the page is temporarily on reality I've
erred on the side of caution.  I do think they add to the page.

> > I do have some things down as questions.  I'm hoping that someone
> > closer to the port, like Steve Woodford, can answer them.
>
> Well, in an effort to preempt your questions here are some
> comments :-)

Thanks Steve!  That is why I had the place holders on the pages.

>  * The MVME167 VMEbus driver is not fully working. At the moment 
>    it is just a framework. (Which will probably change, after
>    having had some discussions with Matthias Drochner...)
 
I've changed the page.  Does the new wording sound better?  Should
the VMEbus driver be on the "Notes on VME boards" page as a part
of the supported/unsupported on-board hardware?

>  * NetBSD/mvme68k is not (yet) using PMAP_NEW. It *is* using UVM.

Changed this too.  No longer says PMAP_NEW.  I guess I got that
impression from either an mailing to netbsd-announce or who knows.
Check the new wording. 

>  * The 'Boot Options' section might look better if replaced by
>    a single paragraph describing supported/unsupported devices
>    since there are not many options available. Unless of course 
>    the current layout is the preferred approach...

I thought about that.  That is how they were on the old page.  I
rejected it because I didn't think it fit with the overall theme
of the page.  What does anyone else think?

>  * I agree with David Brownlee that the MVME147 and MVME167 links
>    on the first page which point to www.mcg.mot.com should point
>    to the relevant section within your "Notes on VME boards" page.

The links now point to their respective board entries on the "Notes
on VME boards" page.  This probably does make more sense since 
the MCG links are on the boards page. 
>  * On the "Notes on VME boards" page you say "[the MVME167] is  
>    hardware compatible with the MVME147". This is not strictly
>    true. The boards are of the same family but have completely
>    different chipsets.

This was lifted from the Motorola Computer Group description.  I
took it at face value.  I've changed it to "... is mostly hardware
compatible ...".  Does this sound better?

>  * NetBSD/mvme68k _should_ still run on 4Mb boards, although
>    I wouldn't recommend it ;-)

I've underlined the "8MB or more is recommended."

>  * The CD2401 (serial port controller), and hence the built-in
>    serial ports, are fully supported on MVME167 using a machine
>    independent driver.

I didn't get that impression from reading the 1.3 -> 1.4 changes, but
was
kind of surprised that they weren't supported.

> Hopefully this clarifies a few things! I look forward to seeing
> the next version of the page. :)

Yep and thanks. :-)

I've got a couple more questions.

+ The "Known Bugs" sections for each board, are they correct?

+ What are the chips for the MVME147 (serial, ethernet, etc.)?
  I'd like to keep the MVME147 section to a similar level of detail
  as the MVME167 section.

+ Is there a better description for the i82596 Ethernet controller?
  Like who's chip it is?  (I'm showing my ignorance.)

+ Any known working VMEbus RAM boards?  Sort of like the transition
  boards list. (This list was taken from MCG documentation as the
  supported boards for the MVME147 and MVME167.)

+ For Steve:  Did you get my missive about the VME stuff I have?

Brian
-- 
Brian Ginsbach                                  <ginsbach@spacestar.net>