On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:49:43 +1100 
 Simon Burge <simonb@netbsd.org> wrote:

 > I'm curious about what this gains.  The 5100 only has a single `dc'...

Comments I've seen elsewhere indicate that there are some ibus models
which have multiple dc chips in them.

 > The autoconf output now has the addresses (which is nicer) but you also
 > see a "pm ... not configured", which a 5100 can't have.  Here's the old:
 > 
 > 	ibus0 at mainbus0
 > 	dc0 at ibus0
 > 	le0 at ibus0: address 08:00:2b:25:28:fc
 > 	le0: 32 receive buffers, 8 transmit buffers
 > 	le0: supplying EUI64: 08:00:2b:ff:fe:25:28:fc
 > 	sii0 at ibus0: target 7
 > 	mcclock0 at ibus0: mc146818 or compatible
 > 
 > and the new:
 > 
 > 	ibus0 at mainbus0
 > 	pm at ibus0 addr 0xfc00000 not configured
 > 	dc0 at ibus0 addr 0x1c000000
 > 	le0 at ibus0 addr 0x18000000: address 08:00:2b:25:28:fc
 > 	le0: 32 receive buffers, 8 transmit buffers
 > 	le0: supplying EUI64: 08:00:2b:ff:fe:25:28:fc
 > 	sii0 at ibus0 addr 0x1a000000: target 7
 > 	mcclock0 at ibus0 addr 0x1d000000: mc146818 or compatible
 > 
 > Is there a way not to be verbose about devices that aren't attached?

The right thing is to not even claim they're there on systems where they
don't exist.

I overlooked this, and will deal with it shortly.

        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov>