Jason Thorpe wrote:

> 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.

I believe you can get a expansion serial board for the 5100, but I've
never seem one...

>  > 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.

Ok, I'm curious again (and not really that much config clueful)!  Given
that the pm attaches to the ibus, and both a 3100 and 5100 have an ibus,
do you make a check for this in ibus.c?  I can't see how you'd do this
purely in the config file...

Simon.