3Com Megahertz 3CXM756 PCMCIA modem on 5.3

[Duane Winner]

Astrodog wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:26:50 -0500, Duane Winner <dwinner-lists at att.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>M. Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>In message: <41F6C64B.3040700 at att.net>
>>>           Duane Winner <duanewinner at att.net> writes:
>>>: Warner Losh wrote:
>>>:
>>>: >>Thanks! That would be great. At least I know it's not just me.
>>>: >>
>>>: >>
>>>: >
>>>: >I've updated what I think is the fix to RELENG_5, so please test and
>>>: >let me know.
>>>: >
>>>: >
>>>: >
>>>: That did the trick. I took one of my other T30's and changed my cvs tag
>>>: from RELENG_5_3 to RELENG_5, cvsup'd, buildword and buildkernel, and I
>>>: was able  to dial out.
>>>:
>>>: I get this now when inserting the card:
>>>:
>>>: pccard1: Allocation failed for cfe 32
>>>: sio4: <3Com Megahertz 3CXM756/3CCM756> at port 0x2f8-0x2ff irq 5
>>>: function 0 config 33 on pccard1
>>>: sio4: type 16550A
>>>: sio4: unable to activate interrupt in fast mode - using normal mode
>>>:
>>>: And the obligatory 'detach' when I remove it.
>>>
>>>Cool.  Sounds about right.  Not sure you should be getting the
>>>allocation failed bit, but that's harmless, as is the fast interrupt
>>>message.
>>>
>>>: Any chance of this getting into RELENG_5_3? I'm not sure how that works
>>>: (since 5.3 gets "security and critical fixes" only), but I thought I
>>>: would ask. Does this classify as a critical fix?
>>>
>>>Hmmm.  Lemme ask.
>>>
>>>Warner
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Hi Warner,
>>
>>I was just wondering what the status of this is, if any. I'm about
>>commit our in-house installation procedures for 5.3, and others on my
>>team are going to want to migrate soon, but lack of PPP support on our
>>laptops isn't going to fly over too well, especially now that there is
>>some travelling going on. We want to stick to -release, as opposed to
>>-stable.
>>
>>I was thinking, I figure we have three possible options:
>>
>>1. If your patch is going to get merged into 5.3-release, that would be
>>the best route; but if that isn't going to happen, or not soon:
>>
>>2. Could we manually apply your patch to /usr/src after cvsup'ing before
>>buildword/buildkernel?
>>
>>3. Find a different PCMCIA modem that is supported by 5.3-release. Most
>>seem to be dirt-cheap these days, so if there is another one that works,
>>we wouldn't be opposed to picking these up.
>>
>>Your thoughts/advice?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Duane
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>freebsd-mobile at freebsd.org mailing list
>>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-mobile
>>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-mobile-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
>>    
>>
>
>If its in RELENG_5 (-STABLE) you oughta be able to cvsup to that. Imo,
>with mobiles, for the time being they should be running -STABLE if
>they have support problems anyway.
>  
>
Actually, I have considered that as a possibility.

What are the most common negatives of running stable instead of release? 
I have no experience tracking -STABLE, as we have always tracked 
-RELEASE only.

I think most of our obsession with running -RELEASE is more historical 
than anything else, and the impression we've had since we started using 
FreeBSD is that -RELEASE is more 'stable' then -STABLE.

Also, I'm fairly certain that when we start upgrading servers, we 
definately want to to go -RELEASE. The software developers on my team 
generally try to maintain their laptops (they telecommute from far away, 
so their laptops are more or less their 'lab' environments) as close to 
as possible to my server configurations, so that there are no surprises 
and we can generally apply the same knowledge between the two.

Maybe I'm just being more anal-retentive than I need to be. :)

Cheers,
Duane


>  
>